Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

135 Mass. 545

Commonwealth v. Flagg

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 16, 1883

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1883-10-16

<p>It is an indictable offence at common law for one to counsel and solicit another to commit a felony, although the solicitation is of no effect, and the crime counselled is not in fact committed.</p> <p>If an indictment in several counts alleges that they are different descriptions of the same act, and, at the trial, the evidence supports some of the counts and does not support the others, a general verdict of guilty may be rendered.</p>

Relies on State v. Avery · Commonwealth v. Boston & Maine Railroad · Commonwealth v. Fitchburg Railroad

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Solicitation”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-10-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably Commonwealth v. Peaslee (1901), Commonwealth v. Stasiun (1965)

2 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 12 states

7018831890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

Morton, C. J.

¶1It is an indictable offence at common law for one to counsel and solicit another to commit a felony or other aggravated offence, although the solicitation is of no effect, and the crime counselled is not in fact committed. Commonwealth v. Willard, 22 Pick. 476. Rex v. Higgins, 2 East, 5. Rex v. Phillips, 6 East, 464. Regina v. Ransford, 13 Cox C. C. 9. State v. Avery, 7 Conn. 266. The first and second counts of the indictment in the case at bar allege with sufficient certainty that the defendant solicited one Thomas Stafford to burn the barn of one Ellen H. Clark, and set out an offence at common law.

¶2The evidence clearly tended to support these counts, and therefore the court properly refused to quash the indictment, and also properly refused the defendant’s request for an instruction that, upon the evidence, the jury would not be authorized to convict him upon either count of the indictment.

¶3It is not necessary to consider whether the evidence at the trial proved the offences charged in the third and fourth counts of the indictment. The jury were instructed that they could not convict upon them, unless they found that the defendant paid the money to Stafford to induce him to fire the barn. This supported and proved the first and second counts, and therefore a general verdict of guilty was properly rendered, as the indictment alleges that the different counts are different descriptions of the same act. Upon such a verdict, a judgment is a conviction of but a single offence, and is deemed to be upon that count which is good, and to which the evidence is applicable. Commonwealth v. Fitchburg Railroad, 120 Mass. 372. Commonwealth v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 133 Mass. 383. Commonwealth v. Nichols, 134 Mass. 531.

¶4 Judgment on the verdict.

/135/mass/545 · .json · Public domain