Commonwealth v. Darling

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Darling

129 Mass. 112, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 192

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 29, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 129 Mass. 112 (Commonwealth v. Darling) 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. Darling, 129 Mass. 112, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 192 (Mass. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

It is immaterial whether this indictment is treated, as in the bill of exceptions, as containing nine counts; or, as appears to have been the intention of the pleader, .as containing three counts only, each consisting of three paragraphs or allegations, alleging respectively a breaking and entering, a stealing, and a receiving of the goods stolen. See Commonwealth v. Glover, 111 Mass. 395; Commonwealth v. Cohen, 120 Mass. 198. In either view, a majority of the court is of opinion that it is conclusively established by authority that there is no misjoinder, either of offences or of counts.

In this Commonwealth, several counts for similar offences whether misdemeanors or felonies, may be joined in one indict ment. Pettes v. Commonwealth, 126 Mass. 242, 245. A thief and a receiver of goods stolen may be indicted together. Commonwealth v. Adams, 7 Gray, 43. In an indictment for breaking and entering a building, with intent to steal, it is usual, though not necessary, to allege an actual stealing therein; and if one person is charged both with breaking and entering and with stealing, he may be convicted and sentenced for either offence, or, if the two offences are charged in separate counts and are proved to be distinct, for both. Crowley v. Commonwealth, 11 Met. 575. Jennings v. Commonwealth, 105 Mass. 586.

If one p.erson breaks and enters a building and steals therein, and another person takes no part in the transaction until after the breaking has been accomplished, but participates in the subsequent stealing, each may be convicted and sentenced accordingly, the one for the breaking and entering, and the other for the stealing, under an indictment which charges both defendants with having jointly committed both offences. Stark. Crim. Pl. (2d ed.) 38, 44. Rex v. Butterworth, Russ. & Ry. 520. Or they may be separately charged in one indictment, according to the actual facts of the case, the one with breaking and entering and

[115]*115stealing, and the other with stealing only, or with receiving the goods stolen. Rex v. Hartall, 7 Car. & P. 475. Rex v. Austin, 7 Car. & P. 796. Commonwealth v. Hills, 10 Cush. 530, 533.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Gray, C. J.

It is immaterial whether this indictment is treated, as in the bill of exceptions, as containing nine counts; or, as appears to have been the intention of the pleader, .as containing three counts only, each consisting of three paragraphs or allegations, alleging respectively a breaking and entering, a stealing, and a receiving of the goods stolen. See Commonwealth v. Glover, 111 Mass. 395; Commonwealth v. Cohen, 120 Mass. 198. In either view, a majority of the court is of opinion that it is conclusively established by authority that there is no misjoinder, either of offences or of counts.

In this Commonwealth, several counts for similar offences whether misdemeanors or felonies, may be joined in one indict ment. Pettes v. Commonwealth, 126 Mass. 242, 245. A thief and a receiver of goods stolen may be indicted together. Commonwealth v. Adams, 7 Gray, 43. In an indictment for breaking and entering a building, with intent to steal, it is usual, though not necessary, to allege an actual stealing therein; and if one person is charged both with breaking and entering and with stealing, he may be convicted and sentenced for either offence, or, if the two offences are charged in separate counts and are proved to be distinct, for both. Crowley v. Commonwealth, 11 Met. 575. Jennings v. Commonwealth, 105 Mass. 586.

If one p.erson breaks and enters a building and steals therein, and another person takes no part in the transaction until after the breaking has been accomplished, but participates in the subsequent stealing, each may be convicted and sentenced accordingly, the one for the breaking and entering, and the other for the stealing, under an indictment which charges both defendants with having jointly committed both offences. Stark. Crim. Pl. (2d ed.) 38, 44. Rex v. Butterworth, Russ. & Ry. 520. Or they may be separately charged in one indictment, according to the actual facts of the case, the one with breaking and entering and

[115]*115stealing, and the other with stealing only, or with receiving the goods stolen. Rex v. Hartall, 7 Car. & P. 475. Rex v. Austin, 7 Car. & P. 796. Commonwealth v. Hills, 10 Cush. 530, 533.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 Mass. 112, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-darling-mass-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack