Commonwealth v. Early

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Early

212 N.E.2d 457, 349 Mass. 636, 1965 Mass. LEXIS 778

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 1, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 212 N.E.2d 457 (Commonwealth v. Early) 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. Early, 212 N.E.2d 457, 349 Mass. 636, 1965 Mass. LEXIS 778 (Mass. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Spalding, J.

The two defendants, Early and Fuller, were tried to a jury, subject to G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, under two indictments charging each with unarmed robbery. Both defendants were found guilty. The cases come here on their appeals with one assignment of error. The error assigned is the denial of the defendants’ motion for a mistrial, which occurred in these circumstances. One Denommee, a police officer of the city of Lowell who had investigated the case, was called as a witness by the Commonwealth and testified with respect to the arrest of the defendants. On cross-examination by counsel representing both defendants the officer was asked whether a photograph had been taken of Fuller when he was brought to the police *637 station, and the officer stated that he was not there at that time. Counsel then asked brm whether it was customary “to photograph people arrested and charged with a crime in the Lowell Police station.” The officer replied, “The defendant has a prior record and he had this picture.” Thereupon defence counsel moved for a mistrial. The motion was denied, subject to the defendants’ exception. The judge then said,1 ‘ I will ask the jury to disregard it. ” Following a bench conference, the judge said further, “I am going to ask the jury to please disregard the last statement that the officer made in regard to the defendant that he was speaking about.” The officer’s answer was not responsive and contained incompetent evidence. The proper practice in such a case is for the objecting party to move to have the answer struck, and to save an exception if the motion is denied. Commonwealth v. McCarty, 323 Mass. 435, 439. This course was not pursued. But the judge in effect did all that such a motion, if made and granted, could have accomplished. He was not obliged to go further and declare a mistrial. That was a matter within his discretion. Curley v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp. 314 Mass. 31. No abuse of discretion appears.

Judgments affirmed.

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

Spalding, J.

The two defendants, Early and Fuller, were tried to a jury, subject to G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, under two indictments charging each with unarmed robbery. Both defendants were found guilty. The cases come here on their appeals with one assignment of error. The error assigned is the denial of the defendants’ motion for a mistrial, which occurred in these circumstances. One Denommee, a police officer of the city of Lowell who had investigated the case, was called as a witness by the Commonwealth and testified with respect to the arrest of the defendants. On cross-examination by counsel representing both defendants the officer was asked whether a photograph had been taken of Fuller when he was brought to the police *637 station, and the officer stated that he was not there at that time. Counsel then asked brm whether it was customary “to photograph people arrested and charged with a crime in the Lowell Police station.” The officer replied, “The defendant has a prior record and he had this picture.” Thereupon defence counsel moved for a mistrial. The motion was denied, subject to the defendants’ exception. The judge then said,1 ‘ I will ask the jury to disregard it. ” Following a bench conference, the judge said further, “I am going to ask the jury to please disregard the last statement that the officer made in regard to the defendant that he was speaking about.” The officer’s answer was not responsive and contained incompetent evidence. The proper practice in such a case is for the objecting party to move to have the answer struck, and to save an exception if the motion is denied. Commonwealth v. McCarty, 323 Mass. 435, 439. This course was not pursued. But the judge in effect did all that such a motion, if made and granted, could have accomplished. He was not obliged to go further and declare a mistrial. That was a matter within his discretion. Curley v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp. 314 Mass. 31. No abuse of discretion appears.

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 N.E.2d 457, 349 Mass. 636, 1965 Mass. LEXIS 778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-early-mass-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack