Commonwealth v. Desmond

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Desmond

188 N.E.2d 856, 345 Mass. 774, 1963 Mass. LEXIS 803

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 27, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 188 N.E.2d 856 (Commonwealth v. Desmond) 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. Desmond, 188 N.E.2d 856, 345 Mass. 774, 1963 Mass. LEXIS 803 (Mass. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments affirmed. The defendant was convicted on indictments charging the unlawful possession of heroin (Gr. L. e. 94, § 212) and the unlawful sale of heroin (Gr. L. c. 94, § 212A). His first assignment of error relates to the refusal of the judge to instruct the jury as follows: “The mere fact that a witness is a government employee does not, of and by itself, entitle his testimony to a higher degree of credibility than another witness.” This was not error. Although evidence of bias or interest on the part of a witness is properly received to affect his credibility, a special instruction relating thereto would be a comment on a fragment of the evidence which the judge is not required to give. The factors bearing upon credibility are to be weighed by the jury and by them alone. The defendant argues further, in his second assignment of error, that the judge not only refused to give the instruction requested, but tended in his charge to indorse the credibility of the government witness. Commonwealth v. Foran, 110 Mass. 179. There was, however, no objection or exception to what the judge said in his charge; the defendant’s single exception was to what the judge did not say. Consideration of the charge as a whole shows no reversible error.

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

Judgments affirmed. The defendant was convicted on indictments charging the unlawful possession of heroin (Gr. L. e. 94, § 212) and the unlawful sale of heroin (Gr. L. c. 94, § 212A). His first assignment of error relates to the refusal of the judge to instruct the jury as follows: “The mere fact that a witness is a government employee does not, of and by itself, entitle his testimony to a higher degree of credibility than another witness.” This was not error. Although evidence of bias or interest on the part of a witness is properly received to affect his credibility, a special instruction relating thereto would be a comment on a fragment of the evidence which the judge is not required to give. The factors bearing upon credibility are to be weighed by the jury and by them alone. The defendant argues further, in his second assignment of error, that the judge not only refused to give the instruction requested, but tended in his charge to indorse the credibility of the government witness. Commonwealth v. Foran, 110 Mass. 179. There was, however, no objection or exception to what the judge said in his charge; the defendant’s single exception was to what the judge did not say. Consideration of the charge as a whole shows no reversible error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 N.E.2d 856, 345 Mass. 774, 1963 Mass. LEXIS 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-desmond-mass-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack