323 Mass. 406 | Mass. | 1948
Shea, a police officer, and Chesties, a wholesale and retail meat dealer, were indicted and tried upon an
We first consider the rulings denying the motions for directed verdicts. The correctness of these rulings is to be determined by the facts which the jury might find to have been established by the evidence. Chesties had called upon Shea as many as twenty-five times in the evening at the police station which Shea and other patrolmen used as headquarters in performing their duties in the district in which the station was located. The defendants exchanged money and different papers at this station on a dozen occasions. At times, they met at night at a restaurant near the station. Chesties would sometimes call at the station after midnight, and would leave with Shea and sit and talk in Shea’s automobile which was parked near the station.
Two police officers saw the defendants riding in Shea’s automobile at 2:40 a.m. on June 16, 1947, proceeding toward the garage occupied by Chesties. This garage, which whs hired by Chesties, had four stalls, one of which he used for a meat freeze unit and one for his truck, and the remaining two were vacant. At the time just mentioned, Shea drove his automobile into the garage where both defendants remained for ten to fifteen minutes. The doors of the garage were then opened, and Shea’s automobile was driven out on the driveway and Chesties got out. Chesties drove his truck into the garage and then got in Shea’s automobile which left in the direction of the police station. Shea was wearing a civilian’s coat and hat, although at that time he was supposed to be wearing his police uniform and patrolling his regular route which did not include the location of the garage.
Before Officer Cerrone left the station shortly before 11:50 p.m. on June 17, 1947, he was instructed by Shea to come back to the station at 1:10 a.m. as Shea said he would then need to go out to get some food. Cerrone returned to the station at 1:45 a.m. Shea left in one half an hour thereafter. Cerrone remained at the station until Shea returned at 3:30 a.m. During this time the premises of the beef company were left unprotected by any patrolman covering his route on foot.
There were four freight cars on the siding of the beef company shortly after midnight on the morning of June 18, 1947. Upon inspection by police officers three were found to be empty and the seal on the door of one referred to as the second car was found to be intact. This seal was the flat band type which could have been found to have been placed on the car when it began its journey to Worcester. Shea left the station at 2:15 a.m. At about 2:30 a.m. two police officers hidden under one of the cars saw two men
The officers returned to the freight car, found the seal had been broken, saw six or seven boxes of pork loins marked "Morrell” on the floor which were the same type of boxes and pork loins as they had seen at Chesties’ garage, and noticed that three or four hooks were empty where hinds of beef had been hanging; Lamb, veal, and hams were
Before Cerrone left the station at 3:30 a.m. to resume patrolling his route, Shea told him that he had gone “down in back of Chicago Dressed Beef to pick up some meat that was left for me, and as I went up to the garage where Chesties keeps his truck, Frank, Cliff, and Louie [[three police officers] accused me of breaking into a car, and called me a thief. Officer Annunziata was going to knock my block off, and I tried to tell them where the meat came from, but they did not believe it. . . . What could I do, they caught me red-handed with the meat in Chesties’ garage. . . . I’m telling you the truth, Charlie, I didn’t break into no car, I am no thief.”
Shea drove Cerrone to the freight car a little after six o’clock on the morning of June 18, 1947, and showed him the seal on a freight car on the siding. It was a ball type of seal and looked all right. Shea told Cerrone that he wanted Cerrone to see that the seal was intact as the other police officers would probably cause him trouble. Shea testified that he was familiar with the sealing and unsealing of freight cars. There was evidence that, if a car is partially unloaded by the beef company when its employees quit for the day or if the seal is broken to get something from a car for a customer, seals supplied by one Kennedy, the freight agent of the Boston & Albany Railroad Company, are used to protect the contents of the car. These seals were different from the flat type of seal.
The acquittal of the defendants on the breaking and entering and larceny indictment did not affect the prosecution for a conspiracy to steal. The offences were distinct from and independent of each other. A conviction on either indictment would not bar a conviction on the other, and this would be true even if one indictment had charged the defendants with committing a crime and the second had charged them with a conspiracy to commit the same offence. Commonwealth v. Walker, 108 Mass. 309. Commonwealth v. Bloomberg, 302 Mass. 349. Commonwealth v. Fine, 321 Mass. 299, 305. It is apparent that the jury were not
The defendants, having been accused of conspiring to steal the meat of the beef company, contend that there was no evidence that meat in their possession at the garage was the property of the company. The jury were instructed that the Commonwealth must prove that this meat was the property of the beef company. This instruction was too favorable to the defendants. The gist of the offence with which the defendants were charged was the combination or confederacy to steal the meat of the beef company. This indictment for conspiracy did not accuse them of stealing the meat, and consequently the Commonwealth in order to secure a conviction was not required to prove that they stole the meat or that it was in the possession of or owned by the beef company. The theft of the meat was alleged to be merely the object of the conspiracy and was a part of the description of the conspiracy alleged in the indictment. It was the obligation of the Commonwealth to prove that the defendants had entered into a combination to steal the meat. Commonwealth v. Harley, 7 Met. 506. Commonwealth v. Kellogg, 7 Cush. 473. Commonwealth v. Lopes, 318 Mass. 453. This is also the real point decided in Commonwealth v. Manley, 12 Pick. 173, although as correctly observed in Wharton, Criminal Law (12th ed.) 1885, “the point ruled, though the case has been cited for other purposes, was simply that, in such case, the property of the note being in the husband, the fraud should have been laid as directed against him.” The offence was completed upon the formation of the
Evidence that the meat found in the possession of the defendants was the property of the beef company was important evidence in support of the charge that they had entered into a conspiracy to steal it and in determining whether their motions for directed verdicts should have been granted.
There was a conflict in the evidence as to the car number of the only unopened freight car that stood on the siding on the early morning of June 18 and whether the contents of that car were beef, pork and a variety of different kinds of meat or beef alone, and whether the seals upon the doors of that car had been broken and any goods removed therefrom up to the time it was unloaded by the employees of the beef company. According to testimony of witnesses from the beef company, they had two cars of meat on the siding on June 17, 1948, and the car containing only beef was unloaded on that date. The documentary evidence indicated that one car contained a cargo of beef and the other various kinds of meat. It is sufficient for present purposes to point out that the jury could accept the testimony of the police officers that the only unloaded car on the siding had been broken into and that the goods removed therefrom were the goods which were shortly thereafter found in the possession of the defendants at Chesties’s garage. They could also find that the shipment of these goods was made by the packer under a uniform order bill of lading consigned to the shipper with directions to notify the beef company; that the bill of lading was indorsed to the beef company by the shipper and sent with a sight draft to a bank in Worcester; that the beef company paid the draft and obtained possession of the bill of lading which it surrendered to
The jury could find that the.original seal had been broken and a new and different type of seal had been substituted, and that Shea in showing this seal to Cerrone was attempting to conceal the fact that the car had been entered a few hours previously. The evidence could properly be considered as an admission by Shea. Commonwealth v. Hall, 4 Allen, 305. Commonwealth v. Daily, 133 Mass. 577. Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 156 Mass. 487. Commonwealth v. Albert, 222 Mass. 196.
None of the various contentions which have been mentioned, all of which were addressed to the denial of the motions for directed verdicts, is tenable. There was no error in refusing to grant the motions.
The judge admitted a signed statement of Chesties under date of July 1, 1947, against Shea, and a written statement of the latter under the same date against Chesties, over the exception of the defendant who had not signed the particular statement. The rule is well established that, when sufficient evidence has been introduced at a trial of an indictment for conspiracy to support a fair inference of the existence of a conspiracy, the acts and declarations of a defendant, which previously had been admitted only against him, become competent against all the defendants, if such acts and declarations are shown to have occurred during the pendency of the conspiracy and in furtherance of its object; but that if such acts or declarations are shown to have taken place after the conspiracy came to an end, then they are not admissible against the other defendants. Commonwealth v. McDermott, 255 Mass. 575, 581-582.
A comparison of the testimony of each defendant with his written statement shows that little, if anything, of any materiality was added to his testimony by his statement. Whatever discrepancies there were between the contents of the statement and the testimony of the defendant who signed the statement were too minor and trivial to affect adversely the defendant other than the signer. The entire testimony of each was without objection left to be considered by the jury without any limitations against the other. Even if there was technical error in admitting the statement of one against the other, it is plain that it did not affect the substantive rights of either defendant. The exceptions to the admission of the statement of each of the defendants against the other are overruled. Commonwealth v. McDermott, 255 Mass. 575, 582. Bendett v. Bendett, 315 Mass. 59, 65-66.
The first four requests for rulings set forth in much detail the nature of and effect to be given to circumstantial evidence and the remaining five requests dealt with reasonable doubt. The judge stated the nature of circumstantial evidence and gave examples of its use and effect. He then frequently referred to the obligation of the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each and every material element of the offence charged. The various acts and declarations of these defendants as disclosed by direct evidence, if believed, left little need for circumstantial evidence. The charge sufficiently covered the subject, and the jury could not have possibly convicted the defendants unless and until the Commonwealth had established its case by the required standard of proof. That the defendants were entitled to no more is settled by Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 14 Gray, 55, 56. See also Commonwealth v. Mannos, 311 Mass. 94, 113; United States v. Becker, 62 Fed. (2d) 1007; Lambert v. State, 234 Ala. 155.
The defendants took exceptions to particular portions of the charge. There was nothing wrong in what the judge said as to the evidence of the ownership of the meat by the beef company. He did no more than- to direct the jury’s attention to certain evidence on this aspect of the case. He properly charged the jury that they should consider the bias and prejudice of the witnesses. He was not required, as the defendants contend, to tell the jury that they could disregard entirely the testimony of a witness found to be biased and hostile to the defendants. Commonwealth v. Putnam, 2 Allen, 301. Commonwealth v. Downing, 4 Gray, 29. Commonwealth v. Wood, 11 Gray, 85. Commonwealth v. Galligan, 113 Mass. 202. Rumrill v. Ash, 169 Mass. 341, 346. Ott v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 276 Mass. 566, 575.
The definition of conspiracy as finally given to the jury was full, complete and adequate, and no exception was taken to it. Commonwealth v. Hunt, 4 Met. 111. Commonwealth v. Dyer, 243 Mass. 472, 484, 485.
The judge refused to allow counsel for Chesties to read, from a transcript of the evidence, previous testimony of a witness called by the Commonwealth for the purpose of
Counsel for the defendant Shea excepted to the refusal of the judge to permit him to inquire of the witness Annunziata if he had asked Shea for a loan of $1,000 in April, 1947. Annunziata had already testified that he had borrowed $30 from Shea in February, 1947. The purpose of asking the question about the $1,000 was to show bias and prejudice on the part of Annunziata. The evidence already recited, as well as much more which need not be stated, was so full and complete to show ill feeling between the witness and Shea that the fact could hardly be disbelieved. The Commonwealth did not deny it and Shea insisted upon recognition of its existence. Another incident that might have increased it was hardly more than cumulative evidence. It only added more fuel to the fire. The short answer, however, is that it is settled that how far the cross-examination of a witness may be considered helpful and relevant to the issues on trial, as well as the extent that the accuracy, veracity and credibility of a witness may be tested, rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his action, where as here no abuse of discretion is shown, is final. Com
Exceptions overruled.