Commonwealth v. Valentino

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.