Olszewski v. Goldberg

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Olszewski v. Goldberg

223 Mass. 27

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 12, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 223 Mass. 27 (Olszewski v. Goldberg) 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

Olszewski v. Goldberg, 223 Mass. 27 (Mass. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Carroll, J.

Ellis W. Willis was a witness for the defendant. To affect the credibility of the witness, a record showing his conviction upon a plea of guilty of the sale of an air gun to a minor was introduced. Later it was found that there was an error in the record, that Willis had been convicted on a plea of nolo contendere. There was a verdict for the plaintiff.

On a motion for a new trial by the defendant, the judge reported the case, stating that in his opinion “the record, even if it had been accurate as to the plea of the said Willis, and the action of the court thereon, would have been admissible in evidence for the purpose for which it was offered.”

In Commonwealth v. Tilton, 8 Met. 232, 233, Shaw, C. J., said: “This plea (nolo contendere) like a demurrer, admits, for the purposes of the case, all the facts which are well stated, but it is not to be used as an admission elsewhere.” Such a plea is in fact a confession, upon which, if accepted, the defendant may be sentenced, and so far as the procedure in the particular case is concerned, is equivalent to a plea of guilty. In this Commonwealth it is now settled that a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere, cannot be used in another proceeding to affect the credibility of a witness. It was not admissible in the case at bar. [29]*29White v. Creamer, 175 Mass. 567. Commonwealth v. Ingersoll, 145 Mass. 381. Commonwealth v. Horton, 9 Pick. 206.

According to the terms of the report, the verdict is to be set aside and a new trial granted.

So ordered.

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

Carroll, J.

Ellis W. Willis was a witness for the defendant. To affect the credibility of the witness, a record showing his conviction upon a plea of guilty of the sale of an air gun to a minor was introduced. Later it was found that there was an error in the record, that Willis had been convicted on a plea of nolo contendere. There was a verdict for the plaintiff.

On a motion for a new trial by the defendant, the judge reported the case, stating that in his opinion “the record, even if it had been accurate as to the plea of the said Willis, and the action of the court thereon, would have been admissible in evidence for the purpose for which it was offered.”

In Commonwealth v. Tilton, 8 Met. 232, 233, Shaw, C. J., said: “This plea (nolo contendere) like a demurrer, admits, for the purposes of the case, all the facts which are well stated, but it is not to be used as an admission elsewhere.” Such a plea is in fact a confession, upon which, if accepted, the defendant may be sentenced, and so far as the procedure in the particular case is concerned, is equivalent to a plea of guilty. In this Commonwealth it is now settled that a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere, cannot be used in another proceeding to affect the credibility of a witness. It was not admissible in the case at bar. [29]*29White v. Creamer, 175 Mass. 567. Commonwealth v. Ingersoll, 145 Mass. 381. Commonwealth v. Horton, 9 Pick. 206.

According to the terms of the report, the verdict is to be set aside and a new trial granted.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 Mass. 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olszewski-v-goldberg-mass-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack