Commonwealth v. Moran

130 Mass. 281, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 75
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 29, 1881·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

Each of the venires is under the seal of the court, and directs the drawing, selecting and summoning of a grand juror from a particular town. The return upon each venire is signed by a constable of the town, and shows that the person named in the return was so drawn and selected, and was summoned to attend at the time specified in the venire. Each of these persons attended and served as a grand juror, and there is no question of his identity or of his qualifications in point of fact. Under these circumstances, neither the inconsistency in the description in the return of the time for which he was summoned, nor the want of an indorsement of his name by the town clerk, nor the omission of the name of the town in the address of the venire, nor the absence of a statement of his qualifications in the venire and return, affects the validity of the indictment. Commonwealth v. Parker, 2 Pick. 550.

The legal competency of the defendant as a witness was not affected by the fact that he did not offer himself as such.' The instructions on this point were in exact accordance with the statute. St. 1870, c. 393, § 1, cl. 3.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Commonwealth v. Moran, 130 Mass. 281, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 75 (Mass. 1881).

130 Mass. 281 (Commonwealth v. Moran) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Jordan
93 N.E. 809 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
State v. Cambron
105 N.W. 241 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1905)
Commonwealth v. Besse
8 N.E. 878 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1886)
United States v. Richardson
28 F. 61 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1886)