Commonwealth v. Crutchfield
This text of 380 N.E.2d 144 (Commonwealth v. Crutchfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The defendant was not harmed by the exclusion of the question put to the witness Phillips (the defendant’s sister) on direct examination as to the prior consistent statement which had supposedly been made to her by the witness Elmore; the jury heard Elmore’s statement twice (in words virtually identical to those employed by the defendant’s counsel in his offer of proof) during the course of the prosecutor’s cross examination of Phillips. See Commonwealth v. Martin, ante 858 (1978). Indeed, the prosecutor extended an invitation to Phillips, which she accepted, to testify that she believed Elmore.
Judgments affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
380 N.E.2d 144, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-crutchfield-massappct-1978.