Commonwealth v. Daniels

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Daniels

269 N.E.2d 672, 359 Mass. 748, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 962

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 29, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 269 N.E.2d 672 (Commonwealth v. Daniels) 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. Daniels, 269 N.E.2d 672, 359 Mass. 748, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 962 (Mass. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant, who was convicted in the Superior Court of armed robbery, has appealed under G. L. e. 278, §§ 33A-33G, alleging two errors on the part of the trial judge. He first complains of the exclusion by the judge of a question on cross-examina-tian of the victim of the robbery designed to show that the witness had said nothing at a hearing in the District Court of the fact to which he testified in the Superior Court that the robber in the course of the robbery had sprayed him in the eyes. In the instant case there was no evidence that, at the District Court hearing, the witness was asked about this. Exclusion of the [749]*749question was not an abuse of the discretion of the trial judge. Commonwealth v. Makarewicz, 333 Mass. 575, 593-594. Cleary v. St. George, 335 Mass. 245, 250. The second alleged error assigned is the denial of a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence based on confessions relative to the robbery made to the police by various individuals after the defendant had been sentenced. The trial judge listened at length to conflicting accounts of the circumstances which prompted the confessions, all of which were later retracted. He had them before him and they were inconsistent with each other to some extent, as well as with the events as recounted at the trial. In these circumstances he acted well within his discretion in denying the motion for a new trial upon consideration of all the evidence. Commonwealth v. Dascalakis, 246 Mass. 12, 32-33. Sharpe, petitioner, 322 Mass. 441, 445. Commonwealth v. Stout, 356 Mass. 237, 242. Commonwealth v. Robertson, 357 Mass. 559, 561-563.

Alexander Whiteside, II (Reuben Goodman with him) for the defendant. William R. Flynn, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The defendant, who was convicted in the Superior Court of armed robbery, has appealed under G. L. e. 278, §§ 33A-33G, alleging two errors on the part of the trial judge. He first complains of the exclusion by the judge of a question on cross-examina-tian of the victim of the robbery designed to show that the witness had said nothing at a hearing in the District Court of the fact to which he testified in the Superior Court that the robber in the course of the robbery had sprayed him in the eyes. In the instant case there was no evidence that, at the District Court hearing, the witness was asked about this. Exclusion of the [749]*749question was not an abuse of the discretion of the trial judge. Commonwealth v. Makarewicz, 333 Mass. 575, 593-594. Cleary v. St. George, 335 Mass. 245, 250. The second alleged error assigned is the denial of a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence based on confessions relative to the robbery made to the police by various individuals after the defendant had been sentenced. The trial judge listened at length to conflicting accounts of the circumstances which prompted the confessions, all of which were later retracted. He had them before him and they were inconsistent with each other to some extent, as well as with the events as recounted at the trial. In these circumstances he acted well within his discretion in denying the motion for a new trial upon consideration of all the evidence. Commonwealth v. Dascalakis, 246 Mass. 12, 32-33. Sharpe, petitioner, 322 Mass. 441, 445. Commonwealth v. Stout, 356 Mass. 237, 242. Commonwealth v. Robertson, 357 Mass. 559, 561-563.

Alexander Whiteside, II (Reuben Goodman with him) for the defendant. William R. Flynn, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 N.E.2d 672, 359 Mass. 748, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-daniels-mass-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack