Commonwealth v. Scott
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment in three counts for three distinct larcenies from three different persons, at different times. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Colburn, J., William J. Flynn was called by the government as a witness, and testified to facts tending to connect the defendant with each of the larcenies.
Read the full summary
Indictment in three counts for three distinct larcenies from three different persons, at different times. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Colburn, J., William J. Flynn was called by the government as a witness, and testified to facts tending to connect the defendant with each of the larcenies. After Flynn had testified, it appeared that the name of the owner of the property described in the third count in the indictment was erroneously stated in that count, and the district attorney stated that he withdrew the charge in that count, and offered to enter a nolle prosequi upon it, or…
1Opinion of the CourtEndicott, J.
We are of opinion that the ruling of the learned judge in the court below was erroneous. It does not appear by the bill of exceptions that the defendant in terms objected to the entry of a nolle prosequi, or insisted on a verdict, on the third count; but as the jury found a verdict of not guilty on that count, it is evident that a nolle prosequi was not entered during the trial, and it is to be presumed that the defendant did not assent that it should be done.
Before the jury is empanelled, or after conviction, a nolle prosequi may be entered without the assent of the defendant; but not during…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Commonwealth v. DascalakisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Attorney General v. TuftsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- United States v. BrokawDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 1945
- Commonwealth v. HartMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Rosser v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1933
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.