Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

97 Mass. 545

Commonwealth v. Mullen

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 15, 1867

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1867-10-15

Indictment for being a common seller of intoxicating liquor. At the trial in the superior court, before Rockwell, J., a state deputy constable testified that he saw the defendant make three separate and distinct sales of intoxicating liquor ; that there was a glass in a door which led from the room where the sales were made to the entry where he stood, and he saw the sales through this glass.

Cited in Black's (1910)’s definition of “Compel tent witness” · Black's (1910)’s definition of “Competent”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1867-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1995 · most notably Brown v. Walker (1896), Powers v. United States (1912)

2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

6018671870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

Bigelow, C. J.

¶1The statute which allows a defendant in a criminal case, at his own request and not otherwise, to testify in bis own behalf, (St. 1866, c. 260,) expressly provides that “ he shall be deemed a competent witness; ” that is, competent not for a special purpose, or to give evidence only which shall operate in his own favor, but competent to testify to any facts relevant and material to the issue. Like all other witnesses, he is to tell the truth and the whole truth concerning any matter proper to be inquired about. If he offers himself as a witness, he waives his constitutional privilege of refusing to furnish evidence against himself, and may be interrogated as a general witness in the cause.

¶2The objection founded on the course of the examination of the defendant at the trial is untenable. The order of the introduction of evidence and the time when questions relating to new matters may be put are within the discretion of the presiding judge, to the exercise of which no exception lies.

¶3Exceptions overruled.

/97/mass/545 · .json · Public domain