Commonwealth v. O'Connor

107 Mass. 219
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 107 Mass. 219 (Commonwealth v. O'Connor) 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. O'Connor, 107 Mass. 219 (Mass. 1871).

Opinion

Ames, J.

1. The prosecuting officer, being called upon to elect upon which of several acts of adultery, described by the witness, he would go to the jury, made choice of one occurring at the place named on the evening of January 15. The time was more specifically identified by the circumstances attending the loss by the defendant of his ticket for admission to a fair. These circumstances made it certain, however, that the evening in question coidd not have been that of January 15, but of some date between February 7 and February 28. But the occasion, time and place could as well be identified by their connection with the time of some other event, as by the date in the calendar. The error in the assumed date would be wholly immaterial, provided the act charged were sufficiently identified by other circumstances, It is enough that it occurred on the night when the loss of the ticket occurred.

[221]*2212. The rulings at the trial were correct and sufficiently favorable to the defendant, with one exception. The paternity of the child was not the subject of inquiry, and it is difficult to see how the fact or the date of its birth could be material to the question at issue. It had no tendency to show the defendant’s guilt on the occasion referred to in the indictment, and we cannot say that the evidence of the fact may not have had some effect "upon the minds of the jurors to his prejudice. On this point, therefore, the

Exceptions are sustained.

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

Related

State v. Curtis
167 N.E.2d 359 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1959)
State v. Koch
189 P.2d 162 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1948)
Hampton v. State
188 S.W.2d 340 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1945)
Commonwealth v. Jenkins
46 Pa. D. & C. 677 (Philadelphia County Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1942)
State v. Sievert
218 N.W. 871 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1928)
Negus v. Foote
117 N.E. 351 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Reinhardt v. State
164 N.W. 654 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1917)
Commonwealth v. Coyne
92 N.E. 1028 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
People v. Stison
103 N.W. 542 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1905)
State v. Norris
97 N.W. 999 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
People v. Flaherty
27 A.D. 535 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
State v. Chisnell
15 S.E. 412 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1892)
State v. Williams
76 Me. 480 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1884)
State v. Crimmins
31 Kan. 376 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 Mass. 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-oconnor-mass-1871.