Commonwealth v. Bonner
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for attempt to commit larceny from the person of a certain woman, alleging that the defendant, with intent to steal the personal property of said woman, “ 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 woman without her knowledge, and against her will,” &c.
Read the full summary
Indictment for attempt to commit larceny from the person of a certain woman, alleging that the defendant, with intent to steal the personal property of said woman, “ 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 woman without her knowledge, and against her will,” &c. In the superior court, before the jury were impanelled, the defendant moved to quash the indictment as being equivocal, and insufficient in its description of the alleged overt act; which motion Morton, J., overruled. The case proceeding…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, J.
The description of the offence in the indictment *589is sufficiently precise and unequivocal. And the form is sustained in Commonwealth v. McDonald, 5 Cush. 365.
The 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.…
2Cited by33 opinions
- Brown v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Commonwealth v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- State v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- State v. PfefferleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1886
- Bessette v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.