Commonwealth v. Powell

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Powell

455 N.E.2d 455, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 1016, 1983 Mass. App. LEXIS 1488

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedOctober 17, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 455 N.E.2d 455 (Commonwealth v. Powell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Powell, 455 N.E.2d 455, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 1016, 1983 Mass. App. LEXIS 1488 (Mass. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

The appeal is from convictions by a Superior Court jury on five complaints framed under G. L. c. 265, § 18, as in effect prior to St. 1981, c. 678, § 3. 1. There is no genuine question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant a rational jury (Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677-678 [1979]) in concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the offence charged in each of the complaints. In particular, the gesture made by the defendant in response to the statement of robber number one that the defendant had a gun, when taken in conjunction with the evidence of the opportunity the defendant had to dispose of a gun after he fled in the dark and turned left into Forsyth Street, causes this case to be governed by Commonwealth v. Delgado, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 865, 866 (1974), S.C., 367 Mass. 432, 433-434, 435-437 (1975), rather than by Commonwealth v. Howard, 386 Mass. 607, 607, 609-611 (1982). 2. We will not assume and are not persuaded that the defendant was prejudiced by a court officer’s taking it upon himself to answer the jury’s question as to whether they could have a transcript of the testimony of a few of the witnesses during the course of their deliberations. Compare Leach v. Wilbur, 9 Allen 212, 213-214 (1864). Contrast Commonwealth v. Donovan, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 269, 272-273 (1983). As appears from the transcript of the lobby conference which the judge promptly conducted with all counsel, the answer which the officer gave (“The judge told you that the record is taken in stenotype and there’s no way we can give you a transcript”) accurately reflected the substance of what the judge had previously told the jury in the course of the charge. The conclusion is inescapable that, if the judge had been asked to bring the jury in, he would have reiterated what the officer had just told them.

Judgments affirmed.

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

The appeal is from convictions by a Superior Court jury on five complaints framed under G. L. c. 265, § 18, as in effect prior to St. 1981, c. 678, § 3. 1. There is no genuine question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant a rational jury (Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677-678 [1979]) in concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the offence charged in each of the complaints. In particular, the gesture made by the defendant in response to the statement of robber number one that the defendant had a gun, when taken in conjunction with the evidence of the opportunity the defendant had to dispose of a gun after he fled in the dark and turned left into Forsyth Street, causes this case to be governed by Commonwealth v. Delgado, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 865, 866 (1974), S.C., 367 Mass. 432, 433-434, 435-437 (1975), rather than by Commonwealth v. Howard, 386 Mass. 607, 607, 609-611 (1982). 2. We will not assume and are not persuaded that the defendant was prejudiced by a court officer’s taking it upon himself to answer the jury’s question as to whether they could have a transcript of the testimony of a few of the witnesses during the course of their deliberations. Compare Leach v. Wilbur, 9 Allen 212, 213-214 (1864). Contrast Commonwealth v. Donovan, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 269, 272-273 (1983). As appears from the transcript of the lobby conference which the judge promptly conducted with all counsel, the answer which the officer gave (“The judge told you that the record is taken in stenotype and there’s no way we can give you a transcript”) accurately reflected the substance of what the judge had previously told the jury in the course of the charge. The conclusion is inescapable that, if the judge had been asked to bring the jury in, he would have reiterated what the officer had just told them.

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

455 N.E.2d 455, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 1016, 1983 Mass. App. LEXIS 1488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-powell-massappct-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack