Commonwealth v. Blair

126 Mass. 40, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 163
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 16, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 126 Mass. 40 (Commonwealth v. Blair) 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. Blair, 126 Mass. 40, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 163 (Mass. 1878).

Opinion

Ames, J.

The evidence objected to had a tendency to show that the defendant had in his possession, not long before the sickness and death of Mrs. Wilson, a metallic instrument which the jury might believe adapted to the use described in the indictment; and that he understood and described it as well adapted to such a use, and safer than other instruments that might be employed for such a purpose. Evidence had already been given for the purpose of showing the existence of cuts, wounds, and bruises in the womb of the deceased, such as indicated the forcible use of some instrument. All this, taken in connection with previous testimony, tended to show that the defendant had the opportunity, and was knowingly in possession of the means, of committing such a crime, and the evidence was therefore competent and admissible. Its weight and effect were of course to be judged of by the jury. Commonwealth v. Brown, 121 Mass. 69.

Its admission after the defendant had closed his case was a matter of judicial discretion, and not a subject of exception. Commmonwealth v. Arrance, 5 Allen, 517. See also Foot v. Hunkins, 98 Mass. 523.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

State v. Craig
367 P.2d 617 (Washington Supreme Court, 1961)
People v. García Garay
78 P.R. 379 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1955)
Pueblo v. García Garay
78 P.R. Dec. 396 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1955)
Commonwealth v. Hersey
85 N.E.2d 447 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
State v. Sturchio
32 A.2d 577 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1943)
State v. Durkee
26 A.2d 604 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1942)
Finnegan v. Checker Taxi Co.
14 N.E.2d 127 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
State v. Rowley
197 Iowa 977 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1923)
People v. Hobbs
130 N.E. 779 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1921)
State v. Lebleu
69 So. 808 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1915)
Clark v. People
79 N.E. 941 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1906)
State v. Wayne
64 P. 69 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1901)
People v. Seaman
65 N.W. 203 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1895)
Commonwealth v. Smith
39 N.E. 111 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Langford v. State
33 Fla. 233 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1894)
United States v. Schneider
21 D.C. 381 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1893)
Commonwealth v. Meaney
23 N.E. 730 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Commonwealth v. Pierce
138 Mass. 165 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)
Commonwealth v. Brown
130 Mass. 279 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 Mass. 40, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-blair-mass-1878.