Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Bagdasarian

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 14, 1926PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWait, J.

The testimony of the officer was properly admitted in evidence. Commonwealth v. Kimball, 7 Gray, 328.

*249If properly admitted upon any ground, the evidence could be used for any purpose, unless its use was expressly limited by the court. Pegg v. Warford, 7 Md. 582. State v. Farmer, 84 Maine, 436, 440. See Higlister v. French, 180 Mass. 299, 301. Hubbard v. Allyn, 200 Mass. 166, 171.

In Commonwealth v. Harwood, 4 Gray, 41, cited by the defendant, the statements excluded were not made upon the premises nor by an inmate. That decision has no application here.

Exceptions overruled.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hubbard v. AllynMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
  2. Pegg v. WarfordCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1855
  3. Higlister v. FrenchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. MartinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  2. Curtin v. BenjaminMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
  3. Commonwealth v. JenskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
  4. Commonwealth v. LoperaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1997
  5. Commonwealth v. RiversMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API