Commonwealth v. Wood

Nov 30, 1927
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Rugg
Rugg, C.J.

The defendant was tried on a complaint charging him with operating an automobile on a public way while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, having been *459convicted of a like offence within the preceding period of ‍​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‍six years. The only question raised is whether there was error in the denial of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict in his favor. There was evidence tending to show that, at about half past two in the afternoon of an August day in the current year, there was a crash of colliding automobiles on Cambridge Street in Cambridge where traffic was at the time stopped because of a ‍​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‍railroad train crossing the street; that the defendant was immediately thereafter found sitting in the front seat of an automobile “in a slumped down position behind the wheel”; that the automobile, in which the defendant was alone, was not in motion and its motor was stopped; that it was the last of four automobiles on the street car tracks about fifteen feet from the curb in the line of traffic; ‍​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‍and that the defendant was drunk and had been convicted of a like offence within the statutory period.

It is provided by St. 1925, c. 297, that “Whoever upon any way operates a motor vehicle . . . while under the influence of intoxicating liquor . . . shall be punished.”

This presents a typical case for the application of the rule of circumstantial evidence. ‘ ‘ The true rule of law respecting the probative character of circumstantial ‍​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‍evidence is well settled. It is that the ‘circumstances must be such as to produce a moral certainty of guilt, and to exclude any other reasonable hypothesis; ‘that the circumstances taken together should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, leading on the whole to a satisfactory conclusion, and producing, in effect, a reasonable and moral certainty, that the accused, and no one else, committed the offence charged.’” Commonwealth v. Russ, 232 Mass. 58, ‍​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‍68. The positions of the automobile and of the defendant and all the circumstances amply justified a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant must have operated the automobile in violation of the statute.

Exceptions overruled.