Commonwealth v. Vona
| Decision Date | 10 January 1925 |
| Citation | 146 N.E. 20,250 Mass. 509 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. VONA. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Frederick W. Fosdick, Judge.
Salvatore Vona was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he excepts. Exceptions overruled.
A. K. Reading, Dist. Atty., and R. T. Bushnell, First Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Boston, for the Commonwealth.
J. M. Graham, of Boston, and C. J. Muldoon, Jr., of Somerville, for defendant.
The defendant, although indicted and tried for murder in the first degree, was convicted of murder in the second degree. During the trial the defendant saved exceptions to the admission of evidence, which he contends should be sustained. The indictment charged that on February 19, 1922, the defendant at Malden did assault and beat one Luigi Seibelli with intent to kill and murder him, and by such assaulting and beating did kill and murder said Luigi Seibelli. The evidence for the Commonwealth in substance showed, that on the night of February 19, 1922, the defendant met Seibelli on the street and said to him, ‘To you, you must die,’ and approaching Seibelli he fired point blank, when Seibelli fell to the ground. It further appeared and could be found by the jury on the medical testimony, that of the two bullets which entered the body of Seibelli, one passed through the kneecap, and the other through the stomach lodging in the back below the shoulder blade, and that the last wound caused Seibelli's death, which occurred February 20, 1922.
While Seibelli was at the Malden Hospital, to which he was removed and where he died February 20, 1922, he signed and made oath on that day to a statement of what took place at the time of the homicide. The admission of this statement is the first exception. The judge was to pass upon the preliminary conditions which were necessary for its admissibility. Commonwealth v. Bishop, 165 Mass. 148, 152, 42 N. E. 560. It must appear that the declarant was conscious of his condition and had abandoned all hope of recovery; but proof of an immediate dissolution is not required. Commonwealth v. Cooper, 5 Allen, 495, 81 Am. Dec. 762;Commonwealth v. Roberts, 108 Mass. 298, 301. The opening sentences of the statement, sufficiently shows that the declarant was conscious he was nearing his end, and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Nesbitt
... 892 N.E.2d 299 ... 452 Mass. 236 ... COMMONWEALTH ... Ralph NESBITT ... SJC-09824 ... Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol ... Argued April 10, 2008 ... Decided August 18, ... See Commonwealth v. Polian, 288 Mass. 494, 497, 193 N.E. 68 (1934); Commonwealth v. Vona, 250 Mass. 509, 511, 146 N.E. 20 (1925). 17 Here, Brault's statement satisfies the requisite elements. She was the victim of the homicide; clearly ... ...
- Commonwealth v. Polian
-
Commonwealth v. Simpson
...to it was given to the jury. There was evidence which warranted the submission of the declaration to the jury. Commonwealth v. Vona, 250 Mass. 509, 146 N.E. 20. The questions which were put to Murphy, together with his answers, were written by a police captain. The writing was not admitted ......
-
Commonwealth v. Middlemiss
...believed to be the declarant's own impending death or that of a co-victim.” Mass. G. Evid. § 804(b)(2) (2013). See Commonwealth v. Vona, 250 Mass. 509, 511, 146 N.E. 20 (1925). Here, the victim had been shot five times and was lying in a pool of blood. During the 911 call, he repeatedly tol......