Commonwealth v. Bagdasarian

153 N.E. 452, 257 Mass. 248, 1926 Mass. LEXIS 1321
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 14, 1926·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Wait, J.

The testimony of the officer was properly admitted in evidence. Commonwealth v. Kimball, 7 Gray, 328.

[249]*249If properly admitted upon any ground, the evidence could be used for any purpose, unless its use was expressly limited by the court. Pegg v. Warford, 7 Md. 582. State v. Farmer, 84 Maine, 436, 440. See Higlister v. French, 180 Mass. 299, 301. Hubbard v. Allyn, 200 Mass. 166, 171.

In Commonwealth v. Harwood, 4 Gray, 41, cited by the defendant, the statements excluded were not made upon the premises nor by an inmate. That decision has no application here.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Commonwealth v. Bagdasarian, 153 N.E. 452, 257 Mass. 248, 1926 Mass. LEXIS 1321 (Mass. 1926).

153 N.E. 452 (Commonwealth v. Bagdasarian) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Mullane
826 N.E.2d 207 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2005)
Commonwealth v. Lopera
674 N.E.2d 1340 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1997)
State v. Simpson
49 N.W.2d 777 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1951)
Commonwealth v. Jensky
61 N.E.2d 532 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1945)
Commonwealth v. Rivers
29 N.E.2d 683 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Curtin v. Benjamin
26 N.E.2d 354 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Commonwealth v. Martin
23 N.E.2d 876 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)