History
  • No items yet
midpage
Commonwealth v. Valentino
257 Mass. 419
Mass.
1926
Check Treatment
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
Citation: 257 Mass. 419
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.