Petition of Dirring
Decision Date | 11 June 1962 |
Parties | Petition of John T. DIRRING. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Walter Powers, Jr., Boston, for petitioner.
James W. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WILLIAMS, CUTTER, and SPIEGEL, JJ.
The petitioner is in custody of the respondent superintendent of the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole in execution under criminal process. See G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 248, § 1. In 1958 he was convicted in the Superior Court of felonies described in G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 266, § 49 ( ), and in G.L. c. 269, § 10, as amended through St.1957, c. 688, § 23 (unlawfully carrying firearms). Also in 1958 he was committed to the custody of the respondent to serve, and is now serving, two concurrent sentences. At the hearing upon this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed on July 11, 1961, he sought release in reliance upon Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (decided on June 19, 1961), contending that there has been 'violation of his Constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.' The Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss. From a denial of the petition, the petitioner appealed, purportedly under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 231, § 96.
The judge found that the petitioner testified as to the search of his automobile by police officers on September 6, 1958, and the finding of 'an assortment of tools and a loaded pistol' in the trunk 'substantially conformably to the allegations of the petition.' He also found:
The Attorney General argues that the findings of the judge are not before us on appeal under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 231, § 96. He cites Watts v. Watts, 312 Mass. 442, 45 N.E.2d 273; Matter of Loeb, 315 Mass. 191, 193-194, 52 N.E.2d 37; and Harrington v. Anderson, 316 Mass. 187, 191-192, 55 N.E.2d 30. We do not consider this or any other procedural question, because we rest our judgment upon a ground which goes to the heart of the petitioner's case and is decisive.
Retrospective effect of the Mapp rule is enshrouded in doubt. We do not puzzle as to something which must be, for us, inscrutable. Compare People v. Muller, 11 N.Y.2d 154, 227 N.Y.S.2d 421, 182 N.E.2d 99. At the moment there is no occasion to do so, because in the present case no issue as to illegally seized evidence was brought here by an appropriate appellate procedure (see Guerin v. Commonwealth, 337 Mass. 264, 266-270, 149 N.E.2d 220) following the trial of the indictments. Indeed, it does not appear that any motion to suppress or objection was made either before (see Segurola v. United States, 275 U.S. 106, 111-112, 48 S.Ct. 77, 72 L.Ed. 186) or at that trial. Compare People v. Friola, 11 N.Y.2d 157, 227 N.Y.S.2d 423, 182 N.E.2d 100. There is no issue as to jurisdiction, and the question of law is raised for the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Richter
...11 N.Y.2d 157, 227 N.Y.S.2d 423, 182 N.E.2d 100; Commonwealth ex rel. Wilson v. Rundle, 412 Pa. 109, 194 A.2d 143; Dirring, Petitioner, 344 Mass. 522, 183 N.E.2d 300; Sisk v. Lane (7 Cir.) 331 F.2d 235; Bender, The Retroactive Effect of an Overruling Constitutional Decision: Mapp v. Ohio, 1......
-
Com. v. Jacobs
...Part I, Declaration of Rights, art. 14. 7 These motions plainly were filed in 'optimistic anticipation' (see Dirring, petitioner, 344 Mass. 522, 524, 183 N.E.2d 300) of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in various cases, not then decided (see fn. 4, supra), especially ......
-
United States v. Rundle
...Gaitan v. United States, 317 F.2d 494 (10th Cir. 1963); Spence v. Sacks, 173 Ohio St. 419, 183 N.E.2d 363 (1962); Petition of Dirring, 344 Mass. 522, 183 N.E. 2d 300 (1962); State v. Long, 71 N.J.Super. 583, 177 A.2d 609 (1962). Many New York cases are to the same effect — see People v. Mul......
-
Cortellesso v. Com.
...337 Mass. 264, 268--269, 149 N.E.2d 220. The rule was applied as to illegally seized evidence in Dirring, petitioner, 344 Mass. 522, 183 N.E.2d 300 (a petition for a writ of habeas The Supreme Court of the United States recognizes that rules such as ours give effect to a proper State intere......