Commonwealth v. Williams

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Williams

380 N.E.2d 1315, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 923, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 775

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedSeptember 21, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 380 N.E.2d 1315 (Commonwealth v. Williams) 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. Williams, 380 N.E.2d 1315, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 923, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 775 (Mass. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinions

1. The defendant was not entitled as of right to have the prospective jurors interrogated individually in accordance with the provisions of G. L. c. 234, § 28, second par., as amended by St. 1975, c. 335. From the bare assertion in the affidavit filed by counsel for the defendant that racial prejudice is widespread in Hampden County the judge was not required to conclude that the statutory preconditions to the right of individual voir dire had been made to appear. Compare Common[924]*924wealth v. Corgain, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 899 (1977); Commonwealth v. Hogue, ante 901 (1978). 2. The bill of exceptions does not substantiate the defendant’s further contention that the judge denied him an opportunity to introduce evidence as to the existence of those preconditions. 3. The judge was not required as matter of law to grant the defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on the alleged misconduct of a police officer. Even if the record established, as it does not, that those allegations were factual, the misconduct obviously failed to accomplish its intended purpose to harm the defendant. In this posture the defendant’s motion presented at best a matter lying within the judge’s discretion, and in the absence of harm to the defendant the judge cannot be said to have abused his discretion in denying the motion.

Alan M. Katz for the defendant. John C. Bryson, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Judgment affirmed.

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

1. The defendant was not entitled as of right to have the prospective jurors interrogated individually in accordance with the provisions of G. L. c. 234, § 28, second par., as amended by St. 1975, c. 335. From the bare assertion in the affidavit filed by counsel for the defendant that racial prejudice is widespread in Hampden County the judge was not required to conclude that the statutory preconditions to the right of individual voir dire had been made to appear. Compare Common[924]*924wealth v. Corgain, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 899 (1977); Commonwealth v. Hogue, ante 901 (1978). 2. The bill of exceptions does not substantiate the defendant’s further contention that the judge denied him an opportunity to introduce evidence as to the existence of those preconditions. 3. The judge was not required as matter of law to grant the defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on the alleged misconduct of a police officer. Even if the record established, as it does not, that those allegations were factual, the misconduct obviously failed to accomplish its intended purpose to harm the defendant. In this posture the defendant’s motion presented at best a matter lying within the judge’s discretion, and in the absence of harm to the defendant the judge cannot be said to have abused his discretion in denying the motion.

Alan M. Katz for the defendant. John C. Bryson, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 N.E.2d 1315, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 923, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-williams-massappct-1978.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack