Commonwealth v. Ford
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for breaking and entering a building with intent to steal therein. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., one Hurley testified against the defendant. There was evidence tending to show that Hurley was concerned in the crime charged, and the defendant contended that he was an accomplice.
Read the full summary
Indictment for breaking and entering a building with intent to steal therein. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., one Hurley testified against the defendant. There was evidence tending to show that Hurley was concerned in the crime charged, and the defendant contended that he was an accomplice. The judge, against the defendant’s objection, instructed the jury that he was not to be regarded as an accomplice, unless “ he was an admitted accomplice or proved so beyond a reasonable doubt.” The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
Whether the witness was to be regarded as an accomplice, requiring corroboration, was a question to be determined by the jury. The whole matter of the degree of credit to be given to a witness, and the extent to which his credit is impaired by his apparent relation to the offence on trial, is for their consideration. Whatever tends to show that he is in any way implicated, may be considered by the jury in determining what credit they will give to his testimony, even if it does not show that he was strictly an accomplice. Commonwealth v. Wood, 11 Gray, 85.
*395We know of no rule of evidence which…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. LawlorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Ripley v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1950
- People v. KrakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Edmonson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1888
- Carter v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1934