Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

157 Mass. 482

Commonwealth v. Ward

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided December 6, 1892

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1892-12-06

<p>Assault and Battery — Witness— Trial.</p> <p>At the trial of an indictment for an assault and battery upon A., it appeared that A. and the defendant had an altercation, which was followed by blows; and the defendant contended that he acted in self-defence. B., who was present at the altercation, testified for the defendant, that he had started to go away, when, hearing blows, he turned round and saw A. with a cane uplifted over the defendant, who thereupon struck A. Upon cross-examination, B. denied that he had so testified, and stated that no blows were struck until he had turned round and saw A. with his cane uplifted; whereupon the defendant’s counsel sought to re-examine B. upon this point. The district attorney objected to the re-examination; and the judge then said to the defendant’s counsel, “ If there is any matter about which the witness has not been inquired of, you may reexamine as to such matter, but I shall not permit a re-examination merely because a witness has made a statement in his direct examination which he has denied on his cross-examination, and in such examination has appeared badly, for the purpose of removing the effect of such appearance.” The defendant’s counsel disclaimed any such purpose, and excepted to the remark of the judge-characterizing the witness as having appeared badly. The judge then stated to the counsel that it was not intended to characterize the appearance of the witness, but to call the attention of the counsel to the limit of are-examination; and that, for the purpose of limiting the re-examination, it was for the court to consider the appearance and statement of the witness, and the question asked on re-examination. Full instructions were given to the jury upon all parts of the case. Held, that the defendant had no ground of exception.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 1901

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-12-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Knowlton, J.

¶1The defendant does not contend that the ruling in regard to the re-examination of the witness was erroneous, but argues that the remark of the presiding justice referring to the appearance of the witness improperly influenced the jury. This remark was not made to the jury, but to the defendant’s counsel, to bring to his attention the proper limits of a re-examination, arid the matters to be considered by the judge in determining these limits. For that purpose, as between the court and the counsel, it was proper. The presiding justice stated to the counsel that it was not intended to characterize the appearance of the witness, and, if the jury heard the original remark, they doubtless heard this statement also. Moreover, it appears by the bill of exceptions that full instructions were given upon all parts of the case, and doubtless the jury were made to understand that the court could not properly influence them in regard to the appearance of the witness as affecting his credibility, and that they were the sole judges in matters of that kind.

¶2No other exception was argued, and we discover no error in the proceedings.

¶3 ¡Exceptions overruled.

/157/mass/482 · .json · Public domain