Commonwealth v. Heard

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Heard

275 N.E.2d 32, 360 Mass. 855, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 1020

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 1, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 275 N.E.2d 32 (Commonwealth v. Heard) 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. Heard, 275 N.E.2d 32, 360 Mass. 855, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 1020 (Mass. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant appeals in cases heard under G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, from convictions of assault and battery on a police officer, of unlawfully carrying a dangerous weapon when arrested for breach of peace, and of being an idle and disorderly person. A jury could have found that the defendant, six feet, seven inches tall, and weighing 371 pounds, on September 25, 1969, was making insulting and obscene remarks to people waiting for an M. B. T. A. train at Dudley Street station, Roxbury, and that when asked to leave the station by members of the transit police force engaged in a scuffle with them, during which one of the policemen sustained a broken bone in the left hand. The jury also could have found that the defendant was carrying a knife when arrested by police. There is no error. References to the Black Panther Party which entered were at the behest of the defendant and not the prosecution, and in any event the judge’s charge provided ample protection to the defendant. Furthermore, there was no error in the judge's refusal to ask the veniremen on voir dire, at the defendant’s request, some forty-four questions, many of which were utterly pointless. The trial judge has broad discretion in this area. Commonwealth, v. Taylor, 327 Mass. 641, 646-647. Commonwealth v. Ricard, 355 Mass. 509, 511. The jury’s verdicts were not tainted because the prosecution in its argument referred to the defendant as a “bully.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 342 Mass. 180, 188. We see no point in discussing other errors assigned by the defendant.

Judgments affirmed.

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

The defendant appeals in cases heard under G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, from convictions of assault and battery on a police officer, of unlawfully carrying a dangerous weapon when arrested for breach of peace, and of being an idle and disorderly person. A jury could have found that the defendant, six feet, seven inches tall, and weighing 371 pounds, on September 25, 1969, was making insulting and obscene remarks to people waiting for an M. B. T. A. train at Dudley Street station, Roxbury, and that when asked to leave the station by members of the transit police force engaged in a scuffle with them, during which one of the policemen sustained a broken bone in the left hand. The jury also could have found that the defendant was carrying a knife when arrested by police. There is no error. References to the Black Panther Party which entered were at the behest of the defendant and not the prosecution, and in any event the judge’s charge provided ample protection to the defendant. Furthermore, there was no error in the judge's refusal to ask the veniremen on voir dire, at the defendant’s request, some forty-four questions, many of which were utterly pointless. The trial judge has broad discretion in this area. Commonwealth, v. Taylor, 327 Mass. 641, 646-647. Commonwealth v. Ricard, 355 Mass. 509, 511. The jury’s verdicts were not tainted because the prosecution in its argument referred to the defendant as a “bully.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 342 Mass. 180, 188. We see no point in discussing other errors assigned by the defendant.

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 N.E.2d 32, 360 Mass. 855, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 1020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-heard-mass-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack