Commonwealth v. Cullen
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for larceny from the person. At the trial in the Superior Court in Suffolk, before Allen, J., there was no direct evidence of the taking, and no stolen property traced to the possession of the defendant.
Read the full summary
Indictment for larceny from the person. At the trial in the Superior Court in Suffolk, before Allen, J., there was no direct evidence of the taking, and no stolen property traced to the possession of the defendant. The evidence was all circumstantial, and confined to the conduct of the defendant and the statements made by him to two police officers, named Weir and Healey, after his arrest, as testified to by them. , Weir testified that he arrested the defendant in New York, and brought him on the cars to Boston; that on the way he said to the defendant: “ If you will get the money it will not…
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
The assurances given to the defendant by the officer in whose custody he was brought from New York were of such a character that any confession which the defendant might have made during the journey, would have been inadmissible in evidence against him. It would have been a clear case of a confession obtained under such inducements that it could not be received. The ground for not receiving such evidence is that it is considered as made under a bias, and cannot safely be relied upon as a free and voluntary confession. Commonwealth v. Morey, 1 Gray, 461. The bill of exceptions shows that the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. PotterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1846
- Commonwealth v. CuffeeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. BarkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Commonwealth v. PiperMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Coffee v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1889
- State v. NewSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Commonwealth v. SegoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.