Commonwealth v. Shand

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Shand

139 N.E.2d 519, 335 Mass. 764, 1957 Mass. LEXIS 704

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 7, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 N.E.2d 519 (Commonwealth v. Shand) 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. Shand, 139 N.E.2d 519, 335 Mass. 764, 1957 Mass. LEXIS 704 (Mass. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed. The defendant was indicted and tried with four other defendants for various crimes, including robbery while armed. Shortly after the commencement of the trial the other four defendants pleaded guilty. The trial continued as to the defendant and he was found guilty. He filed a motion for a new trial which was based upon the affidavits of three of his former co-defendants and upon his own oral evidence. The motion was based upon an alibi. The defendant’s principal assignments of error are to the failure of the judge to have the three affiants appear and testify orally. The motion was denied. There was no error. Commonwealth v. Millen, 290 Mass. 406, 410. Commonwealth v. Coggins, 324 Mass. 552, 556-557, certiorari denied sub nomine Coggins v. Massachusetts, 338 U. S. 881. Commonwealth v. Granito, 326 Mass. 494, 502. The remaining assignments are to permitting the Commonwealth to use a transcript of the evidence taken at the trial and taken by a stenographer duly appointed for the purpose and verified by the said stenographer to attack the credibility of the affiants. This use of the transcript was authorized by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 233, § 80.

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

Judgment affirmed. The defendant was indicted and tried with four other defendants for various crimes, including robbery while armed. Shortly after the commencement of the trial the other four defendants pleaded guilty. The trial continued as to the defendant and he was found guilty. He filed a motion for a new trial which was based upon the affidavits of three of his former co-defendants and upon his own oral evidence. The motion was based upon an alibi. The defendant’s principal assignments of error are to the failure of the judge to have the three affiants appear and testify orally. The motion was denied. There was no error. Commonwealth v. Millen, 290 Mass. 406, 410. Commonwealth v. Coggins, 324 Mass. 552, 556-557, certiorari denied sub nomine Coggins v. Massachusetts, 338 U. S. 881. Commonwealth v. Granito, 326 Mass. 494, 502. The remaining assignments are to permitting the Commonwealth to use a transcript of the evidence taken at the trial and taken by a stenographer duly appointed for the purpose and verified by the said stenographer to attack the credibility of the affiants. This use of the transcript was authorized by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 233, § 80.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 N.E.2d 519, 335 Mass. 764, 1957 Mass. LEXIS 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-shand-mass-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack