Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/280/280mass392.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:25:08+00:00

Document:
COMMONWEALTH vs. GEORGE W. MORGAN.
Practice, Criminal, New trial, Exceptions, Appeal with assignment of errors, Sentence.
Whether a review of the denial of a motion for a new trial of an indictment, the trial of which had been subject to the provisions of St. 1925, c. 279; St. 1926, c. 329, should be sought by way of exceptions or an appeal with an assignment of errors, was not decided.
A judge of the Superior Court is not required to make findings of fact in passing upon a motion for a new trial of an indictment.
Matters which might have been raised at the trial of an indictment, but which were not so raised, cannot be raised as of right on a motion for a new trial.
Where it appeared to this court, in reviewing a denial of a motion for a new trial of an indictment, that there might be a question as to whether a sentence imposed upon the defendant previous to the filing of the motion was in excess of that permitted by law, but such question had not been raised at the trial or at the hearing on the motion, nor suggested in the arguments of counsel, such question was not decided by this court.
It was stated that a sentence in excess of what the law permits is not void, but only voidable on appropriate proceedings.
INDICTMENT, found and returned on February 2, 1931, described in the opinion.
The indictment was tried in the Superior Court before Gibbs, J. The defendant was found guilty. Sentence imposed upon the defendant, and proceedings relative to a motion by him for a new trial of the indictment, are described in the opinion.
I. D. Farquhar, for the defendant.
fullness in the charge. All these matters might have been, but were not, raised at the trial. Such matters cannot be raised as of right for the first time on a motion for new trial. Commonwealth v. Vallarelli, 273 Mass. 240, 248. Vengrow v. Grimes, 274 Mass. 278, 280. The disposition of the motion was left to the sound judicial discretion of the judge. Commonwealth v. Barney, 258 Mass. 609. An examination of the transcript of the evidence and the summary of the record fails to show that there was any abuse of discretion by the judge in denying the defendant's motion for new trial.
A question has arisen in the mind of the court whether the sentence imposed was in excess of what the law permits. (Commonwealth v. Andler, 247 Mass. 580, 582.) That question is based on the circumstance that the indictment does not appear to have been framed upon G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 265, § 15A (St. 1927, c. 187, § 1), whereby a felony was created, but seemingly charged a simple assault and battery with words of aggravation, commonly regarded as a misdemeanor. Commonwealth v. O'Donnell, 150 Mass. 502, 503. Commonwealth v. McCan, 277 Mass. 199, 202-203. The sentence here imposed was appropriate for a felony but not for a misdemeanor. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 279, § 15; c. 274, § 1. O'Neil v. Commonwealth, 165 Mass. 446. Beard v. Boston, 151 Mass. 96, 98. This question was not raised at the trial or at the hearing on the motion for a new trial, nor suggested in the arguments of counsel, and is not here decided. It is not before us since a sentence in excess of what the law permits is not void, but only voidable on appropriate proceedings. Sennott's Case, 146 Mass. 489, 492, 493.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 15
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 § 15
 § 1
 v. 
 v.