Commonwealth v. Woodward

• Decision Date: 03 January 1893
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. WOODWARD.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

157 Mass. 516
32 N.E. 939

COMMONWEALTH
v.
WOODWARD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

Jan. 3, 1893.

Exceptions from superior court, Bristol county; DANIEL W. BOND, Judge.

Indictment against Willard F. Woodward for soliciting another to commit murder. Defendant was found guilty, and brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

[157 Mass. 519]C.N. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

Cummings & Higginson and L.E. White, for defendant.

[157 Mass. 516]ALLEN, J.

The plea in abatement raises the question whether an indictment is to be held bad because one of the grand jurors by whom it was found, being otherwise competent and qualified to serve, had, before the meeting of the grand jury, made a personal investigation into the guilt of the accused, and had secreted himself in a room with an officer for the purpose of listening to declarations and admissions made by the accused concerning the crime, and has heard such declarations and admissions, and had [157 Mass. 517]listened to statements of officers to the effect that the accused was guilty, and had thereupon formed an opinion, and believed him to be guilty before and at the time of the investigation of the case by the grand jury. We are of opinion that these facts constitute no legal objection to the validity of the indictment. This opinion is in accordance

[32 N.E. 940]

with what appears to us to be the clear weight of judicial decision elsewhere, though in some instances views to the contrary have been held. It is, however, to be borne in mind that, in examining the decisions of different tribunals in reference to the position, functions, and proper methods of discharging the duties of grand jurors, it is necessary to know the statutory law under which those decisions have been rendered, in order rightly to understand them. For example, as we understand it, in New York a grand jury can receive but legal evidence, (Code Crim.Proc. §§ 255-257,) while in Connecticut it is the duty of each grand juror, before the grand jury come together, to make a personal investigation of all offenses that come to his knowledge, (Gen.St.Conn., Revision 1887, c. 12; Watson v. Hall, 46 Conn. 204.) In Massachusetts there is no statute defining the duties of grand jurors, except so far as the same may be gathered from their oath of office. This oath is as follows: “You, as grand jurors of this inquest, for the body of this county of ______, do solemnly swear that you will diligently inquire, and true presentment...