Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 Mass. 423

Commonwealth v. Phillips

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 15, 1820

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1820-10-15

<p>ah accessory in a capital felony cannot be put on his trial without his consent, H the principal be dead without conviction.</p> <p>Where a capital indictment had been continued one term, and the government was not prepared for trial, the Court took the prisoner’s single recognizance for his appearance the next term.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1820-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1978

5 state decisions

101820183018401850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

The Court

¶1observed, that the question was of too much importance to be decided instanter; the trial might proceed, and the prisoner should have the benefit of the objection after conviction, if a conviction should follow. The trial continued through the greater part of the day ; * and towards evening the [ * 425 ] Solicitor-General, finding that a material witness for the government had left the Court, the trial was postponed until the morning; when

¶2The Chief Justice stated, that since the adjournment of the Court the preceding evening, the justices had carefully examined the books upon the subject, and were unanimously of opinion, that, by the common law an accessory cannot be put on his trial, but by his *352own consent, until the conviction of the principal. The reason of this rule is very plain. If there is no principal, there can be no accessory; and the law presumes no one guilty until conviction. Statutes have made a difference as to some lesser species of offences, but do not touch the principle in capital cases. Our only doubt arose from the peculiar circumstance in this case, that the person charged as principal is dead, and can never be tried. If he were alive, and on trial, it is possible he might establish his innocence, strong as the evidence has appeared in support of his guilt. In such case, the prisoner could not be found guilty ; for he could not have been accessory to the commission of the crime as charged. The trial might have been stopped at the commencement of it, had our minds been then free from all doubt. But as the prisoner has been put on his trial, he has a right to a verdict. The jury, accordingly, under *>e direction of the Court, immediately returned a verdict of acquittal : and the prisoner was discharged of this indictment (2).

¶3The prisoner was also arraigned at the last March term, upon an indictment against him as principal in the same offence. The Solicitor-General not being inclined to go to trial upon the evidence he had, the counsel for the prisoner moved for his discharge.

¶4The habeas corpus act (3) provides that, “ when any person shall be held in prison under indictment, he shall be tried or bailed at the first term next after his indictment, if he demands the [ * 426 J same; unless it shall appear to * the Court, that the witnesses on behalf of the government have either been enticed away, or are detained by some inevitable accident from attending.”

¶5The Court ordered the prisoner to recognize alone in 2000 dollars for his appearance at the next term.

¶6 [Russell on Crimes, p. 36, 2d Ed.—Ed.]

¶7 Stat. 1784, c. 72, § 13

/16/mass/423 · .json · Public domain