Commonwealth v. Plummer

Decided November 26, 1888

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1888-11-26

<p>Criminal as a Witness — Immunity from Prosecution—Absence of Promise.</p> <p>On a complaint for keeping intoxicating liquors with intent unlawfully to sell the same, the defendant pleaded in bar that he was employed as a bar-keeper to sell such liquors by a city hotel-keeper, against whom a complaint was made for maintaining a common nuisance under the Pub. Sts. c. 101, §§ 5,6; that the city marshal prosecuting the latter complaint needed him as a witness, and, knowing that he was willing to testify against his employer, but without having any conversation with him, summoned him as a witness; and that because of his appearance in court to testify the hotel-keeper pleaded guilty. Held, that there was no evidence of any promise, express or implied, that the defendant should be protected from prosecution.</p>

Relies on Commonwealth v. Brown

Decided 1888-11-26

Morton, C. J.

¶1We need not discuss the question whether the Commonwealth would be barred from prosecuting a person for an offence by the fact that the attorney general, district attorney, or other prosecuting officer had promised such person immunity, upon calling him as a witness in the prosecution of another person for the same offence, or one connected with it. Such question is not raised in the case at bar, because there is nothing to show that the city marshal made any promise to the defendant, express or implied, that he should be protected from prosecution. Commonwealth v. Brown, 103 Mass. 422. Commonwealth v. Denehy, 103 Mass. 424, note.

¶2 Exceptions overruled.