Commonwealth v. Richardson

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Richardson

241 N.E.2d 924, 354 Mass. 773, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 969

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 30, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 241 N.E.2d 924 (Commonwealth v. Richardson) 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. Richardson, 241 N.E.2d 924, 354 Mass. 773, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 969 (Mass. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant was convicted of armed robbery. His bill of exceptions fails to show error. He contends that the judge erred when, charging on the issue of alibi, he read from Chief Justice Shaw’s opinion in Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295, 319 (1850), and described him as “one of the great chief justices of the Supreme Court of this Commonwealth.” Only this fragment of the charge, lifted from the context, is included in the bill of exceptions. The impression created by the charge as a whole is the test. Commonwealth v. Aronson, 330 Mass. 453, 457. Commonwealth v. Greenberg, 339 Mass. 557, 585. Commonwealth v. Sullivan, ante, 598, 607. There was no error in denying the defendant’s motion to poll the jury. Commonwealth v. Roby, 12 Pick. 496, 512-515. Commonwealth v. Costley, 118 Mass. 1, 28. Commonwealth v. Goldenberg, 338 Mass. 377, 386. He does not argue that he had an absolute right, but merely that it was a matter of discretion. In order to show error, he relies upon numerous alleged facts which are not in the record and which we, therefore, cannot consider. There was no abuse of discretion.

Exceptions overruled.

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

The defendant was convicted of armed robbery. His bill of exceptions fails to show error. He contends that the judge erred when, charging on the issue of alibi, he read from Chief Justice Shaw’s opinion in Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295, 319 (1850), and described him as “one of the great chief justices of the Supreme Court of this Commonwealth.” Only this fragment of the charge, lifted from the context, is included in the bill of exceptions. The impression created by the charge as a whole is the test. Commonwealth v. Aronson, 330 Mass. 453, 457. Commonwealth v. Greenberg, 339 Mass. 557, 585. Commonwealth v. Sullivan, ante, 598, 607. There was no error in denying the defendant’s motion to poll the jury. Commonwealth v. Roby, 12 Pick. 496, 512-515. Commonwealth v. Costley, 118 Mass. 1, 28. Commonwealth v. Goldenberg, 338 Mass. 377, 386. He does not argue that he had an absolute right, but merely that it was a matter of discretion. In order to show error, he relies upon numerous alleged facts which are not in the record and which we, therefore, cannot consider. There was no abuse of discretion.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 N.E.2d 924, 354 Mass. 773, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-richardson-mass-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack