Commonwealth v. Bonner

Decided November 15, 1867

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1867-11-15

<p>[n an indictment for attempt to commit larceny from the person of an individual, an allegation that the defendant, “ with intent to steal the personal property ” of said individual, “being in her pocket, and on her person,” did “ thrust, insert, put and place his hand upon the dress near and into the pocket” of the said individual, is not equivocal, nor insufficient in precision.</p> <p>A defendant in a criminal proceeding who testifies as a witness at the trial, may be asked on cross-examination, for the purpose of affecting his credibility as a witness, “ if he has been in the house of correction for any crime,” provided objection is waived that the record is the best evidence thereof.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1867-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1965

21 state decisions — followed in 12 states

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 →

Chapman, J.

¶1The description of the offence in the indictment *589is sufficiently precise and unequivocal. And the form is sustained in Commonwealth v. McDonald, 5 Cush. 365.

¶2The statute allowed the defendant, at his election, to become a witness. St. 1866, c. 260. By availing himself of the privilege he assumed the character of a witness, and subjected himself to the liabilities incident to that position. The statute does not exempt him from cross-examination, and impeachment as a witness; and there is no reason why he should be exempt from it. Commonwealth v. Mullen, ante, 545. Gen. Sts. c. 131, § 13. Commonwealth v. Lannan, 13 Allen, 563.

¶3 Exceptions overruled.