Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

110 Mass. 407

Commonwealth v. White

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 15, 1872

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1872-10-15

Complaint to a trial justice, alleging that the defendant “ with force and arms in and upon the body of Timothy Harrington an assault did make, and him did then and there threaten to shoot with a gun, which he then and there pointed and aimed at said Harrington.” At the trial, on appeal, in the Superior Court, before Pit-man, J., the Commonwealth introduced evidence tending to show that the defendant was driving in a wagon along a highway which Harrington, one Sullivan and…

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It is not the secret Intent of the assaulting party, nor the undisclosed fact of his ability or inability to commit a battery, that is material; but what his conduct and the attending circumstances denote at the time to the parly assaulted. If to him they indicate an attack, he is justified in resorting to defensive action. The same rule applies to the proof necessary to sustain a criminal complaint for an assault. It is the outward demonstration that constitutes the mischief which is punished as a breach of the peace.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Price v. United States

““That if the defendant, within shooting distance, menacingly pointed at Harrington a gun, which Harrington had reasonable cause to believe was loaded, and Harrington was actually put in fear of immediate bodily injury therefrom, and the circumstances of the case were such as ordinarily to induce such fear in the mind of a reasonable man, that then an assault was committed, whether the gun was in fact loaded or not.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Price v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1872-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably Commonwealth v. Delgado (1975), Commonwealth v. McCan (1931)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 17 states

70187218801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Wells, J.

¶1The first ruling prayed for raised, in effect, a question of variance.

¶2In criminal proceedings generally, if an offence, which is sufficiently set forth in the complaint, is made out by the proofs, it will warrant a conviction of that offence, although of less gravity or degree than the whole charge. Matters of aggravation are not essential to a conviction ; neither are averments as to the mode of *409commission, or the implement used; and allegations of such incidents need not be strictly proved, unless they are descriptive and therefore necessary to the identification of the act charged as an offence. Commonwealth v. Burke, 14 Gray, 100. The first ruling asked for was rightly refused: 1. because there was some evidence in support of each of the allegations that the defendant “ pointed and aimed ” the gun at Harrington, and threatened to shoot with the gun; 2. because the instructions given included all that was necessary to constitute the offence ; and whatever more was alleged in the complaint was not descriptive nor essential for any reason. Acts, as well as words, may constitute and prove a threat.

¶3The instructions required the jury to find that the acts of the defendant were done “ menacingly; ” that Harrington had reasonable cause to believe the gun pointed at him was loaded, and was actually put in fear of immediate bodily injury therefrom; and that the circumstances were such as ordinarily to induce such fear in the mind of a reasonable man.

¶4Instructions in accordance with the second ruling prayed for would have required the jury also to find that the defendant had an intention to do some bodily harm, and the present ability to carry his intention into execution. Taking both these conditions literally, it is difficult to see how an assault could be committed without a battery resulting.

¶5It is not the secret intent of the assaulting party, nor the undisclosed fact of his ability or inability to commit a battery, that is material; but what his conduct and the attending circumstances denote at the time to the party assaulted. If to him they indi cote an attack, he is justified in resorting to defensive action. The same rule applies to the proof necessary to sustain a criminal complaint for an assault. It is the outward demonstration that constitutes the mischief which is punished as a breach of the peace.

¶6The authorities cited for the Commonwealth amply support the rulings and instructions to the jury at the trial.

¶7Exceptions overruled.

/110/mass/407 · .json · Public domain