Commonwealth v. Baldwin

100 N.E. 358, 213 Mass. 238, 1913 Mass. LEXIS 949
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 4, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 100 N.E. 358 (Commonwealth v. Baldwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 100 N.E. 358, 213 Mass. 238, 1913 Mass. LEXIS 949 (Mass. 1913).

Opinion

Hammond, J.

The demurrer to the plea in bar was rightly sustained. Both complaints were made and sworn to by the same [239]*239person at the same time. In each the crime charged was the keeping and maintaining of a common nuisance between March 7, 1911, and August 7, 1911. One complaint alleged that the tenement was used for the sale of intoxicating liquor; the other that it was resorted to for prostitution and lewdness. Both complaints were tried together in the lower court “at one trial.” That court found the defendant not guilty on the first and guilty on the second.

The only sensible view of the course taken by the lower court is that the Commonwealth proved that the tenement was resorted to for prostitution and lewdness and was therefore a nuisance, but failed to show that it was used for the sale of intoxicating liquor, and that the acquittal was based upon a variance between the charge and the proof.

It is well settled that where there are two or more counts, even for the same offense, in one complaint or indictment, an acquittal on one count by reason of a variance is perfectly consistent with conviction upon another stating the offense in a different way. Commonwealth v. Edds, 14 Gray, 406. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case the same rule should be applied here; and the failure to prove the specific allegation in one complaint and the consequent acquittal by reason of a variance between the charge and the proof is no bar to conviction upon the other.

Exceptions overruled; order sustaining the demurrer affirmed.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Bloomberg
19 N.E.2d 62 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Commonwealth v. DiStasio
8 N.E.2d 923 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Zediker v. State
207 N.W. 168 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1926)
Commonwealth v. Haddad
145 N.E. 561 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
State v. Marchindo
211 P. 1093 (Montana Supreme Court, 1922)
Chase v. Proprietors of the Revere House
122 N.E. 162 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Commonwealth v. Dow
105 N.E. 995 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 N.E. 358, 213 Mass. 238, 1913 Mass. LEXIS 949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-baldwin-mass-1913.