Commonwealth v. Whitcomb

177 N.E. 821, 277 Mass. 27, 1931 Mass. LEXIS 1073
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 1, 1931·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Rugg, C.J.

This indictment charged the defendant in two counts with committing unnatural and lascivious acts with a young woman. G. L. c. 272, § 35. The only question raised is whether a verdict ought to have been directed in favor of the defendant. There was ample evidence, which need not be narrated nor summarized, to support the charge. There is nothing inconsistent with this result in Commonwealth v. Delano, 197 Mass. 166. If it be assumed, but without so deciding, that there was evidence sufficient to prove a different crime from that laid in the indictment, the jury were not obliged to believe that evidence. The testimony supporting the contentions of the Commonwealth alone may have been given credence, and all that of a contrary tendency may have been distrusted and rejected as untrue. Commonwealth v. Russ, 232 Mass. 58, 70. Whiteacre v. Boston Elevated Railway, 241 Mass. 163. Goodell v. Sviokcla, 262 Mass. 317, 319. Haun v. LeGrand, 268 Mass. 582, 584. Even if the testimony of the young woman witness was not altogether consistent, the part or parts to be accepted as true were for the jury. The decision in Sullivan v. Boston Elevated Railway, 224 Mass. 405, is not applicable to the testimony here disclosed.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Commonwealth v. Whitcomb, 177 N.E. 821, 277 Mass. 27, 1931 Mass. LEXIS 1073 (Mass. 1931).

177 N.E. 821 (Commonwealth v. Whitcomb) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Leland
42 N.E.2d 249 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Associates Discount Corp. v. Laniefsky
2 Mass. App. Dec. 140 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1942)
Commonwealth v. Albert
40 N.E.2d 21 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Commonwealth v. DiStasio
8 N.E.2d 923 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)