Commonwealth v. Durfee

100 Mass. 146
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 100 Mass. 146 (Commonwealth v. Durfee) 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. Durfee, 100 Mass. 146 (Mass. 1868).

Opinion

Chapman, C. J.

1. Evidence of an act of adultery may be corroborated by evidence of prior acts of familiarity between the parties. Commonwealth v. Merriam, 14 Pick. 518. The defendant’s exceptions do not show that the acts of familiarity proved in this case were subsequent to the alleged act of adultery.

2. But the verdict was not regularly rendered. Even in civil cases it is required that, if the jury separate after being sent out, the fact that they agreed before they separated shall be evidenced by a verdict sealed up and brought into court. Less strictness ought not to be tolerated in a criminal case than is is required in a civil case. In this case, the jury separated, and when they came into court the next morning they did not present a sealed verdict, but rendered an oral verdict just as they would have done if they had not separated. It is true that the written verdict which is returned in a civil case is placed on file as the verdict of the jury, while in a criminal case a general verdict is oral. But the permission which is given to the jury to separate in a criminal case is always on condition that before their separation they shall reduce their verdict to writing, signed by their foreman and sealed up. Such appears to have been the direction in this case. We know of no authority or practice allowing them to separate without doing this, except when they are discharged because they cannot agree; or for receiving their verdict after such separation, without having the sealed verdict opened and read in court" nor do we see any reason for relaxing the rule. Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

United States v. James J. D'Antonio
342 F.2d 667 (Seventh Circuit, 1965)
Commonwealth v. Della Porta
85 N.E.2d 248 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
Charles v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
230 Mass. 536 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
People ex rel. Sheldon v. Curtin
27 N.Y. Crim. 535 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)
People v. Duffek
128 N.W. 245 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1910)
Hechter v. State
56 L.R.A. 457 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1902)
Commonwealth v. Kennedy
48 N.E. 770 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Grant v. State
33 Fla. 291 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1894)
Commonwealth v. Walsh
132 Mass. 8 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1882)
Commonwealth v. Costello
128 Mass. 88 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)
United States v. Bennett
24 F. Cas. 1093 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1879)
Commonwealth v. Tobin
125 Mass. 203 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1878)
Commonwealth v. Carrington
116 Mass. 37 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1874)
Anonymous
63 Me. 590 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 Mass. 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-durfee-mass-1868.