Commonwealth v. Wainio

Jan 8, 1974
Reporters:
, ,

The defendant excepted to the denial of his motion (filed in the Superior Court) to dismiss (“on the ground that it fails to state a crime”) a complaint which alleged in material part ‍​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‍that on a given date “at Boxborough ... [the *867defendant] did in the Daytime, break and enter the dwelling house of [named individual], with intent to commit a felony, no person lawfully therein being put in, fear, contrary to the provisions of [G. L. c. 266, § 18] ....” The defendant was found guilty and sentenced following a jury waived trial and has appealed under G. L. c. ‍​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‍278, § 28. We assume in his favor (although it is by no means clear from the record) that the arguments now presented to us were also presented to the Superior Court. A perusal of the record (which does not disclose any of the proceedings at trial; see Guerin v. Commonwealth, 337 Mass. 264, 266 [1958]) and briefs leads us to the conclusion that if the defendant wished to question ‍​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‍the sufficiency of the complaint because it was not framed in the language of one of the forms found in G. L. c. 277, § 79 (as to which see Commonwealth v. Snell, 189 Mass. 12,18-19 [1905]), or wished to be apprised of a particular felony intended to be committed (as to which see Commonwealth v. Lewis, 346 Mass. 373, 377-378 [1963], cert. den. sub nom. Lewis v. Massachusetts, 376 U. S. 933 [1964]), or believed (despite the decision ‍​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‍in Commonwealth v. Doherty, 10 Cush. 52, 54-55 [1852]) that the complaint was deficient for failure to allege intent to commit a felony inside the building broken into (as to which see Perkins, Criminal Law [2d ed.] 212), he should have availed himself of the remedy (not here employed) of a motion for a bill of particulars. G. L. c. 277, §§ 34 and 40. See Commonwealth v. Jordan, 207 Mass. 259, 265-268 (1911); Commonwealth v. Ronchetti, 333 Mass. 78, ‍​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‍79, 82 (1955); Persampieri v. Commonwealth, 343 Mass. 19, 21-22 (1961); Commonwealth v. Valleca, 358 Mass. 242, 244 (1970).

The case was submitted on briefs. William A. Nelson for the defendant. John J. Droney, District Attorney, Terence M. Troyer & Bonnie H. MacLeod-Griffin, Assistant District Attorneys, for the Commonwealth.

Judgment affirmed.