midpage

Commonwealth v. ValentinoCommonwealth v. Valentino

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Nov 22, 1926
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Wait
Wait, J.

These exceptions cannot be sustained. No question of law which did ‍​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‍not arise at the trial was presented by the motion for a new trial. The decision upon that motion was within the discretion ‍​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‍of the trial judge. Nothing appears to show an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Teregno, 234 Mass. 56, 60.

The bill of exceptions fails to show that any ‍​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‍objection was made to the questions asked of the witnesses. It was too late to object and to move to strike out after ‍​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‍responsive answers had been given. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 199 Mass. 55, 60, 61. See Wigmore, Ev., § 18, and cases cited.

Nothing appears to show that counsel for the ‍​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‍defendant was surprised by the answers, or misled by the questions.

Exceptions overruled.

Case Details

Case Name: Commonwealth v. Valentino
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: Nov 22, 1926
Citations: 154 N.E. 179; 257 Mass. 419; 1926 Mass. LEXIS 1393
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
Log In