Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/351/351mass68.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:15:52+00:00

Document:
COMMONWEALTH vs. ROBERT WILLIAM STIRLING, JR.
INDICTMENT found and returned on February 8, 1965.
The case was tried in the Superior Court before Rose, J.
Walter Powers, Jr., for the defendant.
Donald L. Conn, Assistant District Attorney (Ruth L. Abrams, Assistant District Attorney, with him), for the Commonwealth.
REARDON, J. The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree of Samuel Washington committed on January 30, 1965, in Malden. The jury recommended that the death sentence be not imposed. The case is before us on the defendant's appeal pursuant to G. L. c. 278, Sections 33A-33G, as amended, accompanied by a summary of the record, a transcript of the evidence, and assignments of error. The evidence is summarized as follows.
his body was discovered in a cab in Malden. He had been shot with a .22 calibre weapon six times in the back of the head at close range. There was a large quantity of blood on the floor of his cab when it was discovered and some blood was spattered about the general interior of the vehicle. The fragments of the bullets recovered in an autopsy subsequently performed were too small to be identified. However, six empty cartridge casings found in the rear of the cab were identified by two ballistics experts as having come from the Astra. Further, the brand of the casings was identified as the same purchased by the defendant when he bought the Astra. The points of impact of all the shots were close together, indicating that each had been aimed by the assailant. It was testified that the Astra, although semi-automatic, required a separate pull of the trigger to fire each shot and the strength of the pull required was greater than that of most such weapons. There were no witnesses, and no fingerprints which had been made by the defendant were found in the cab.
county jail for questioning regarding the theft of the Biretta, a State policeman saw him and, after informing the defendant of his constitutional rights, questioned him regarding his activities in Massachusetts. The defendant denied having committed the Malden crime but showed great interest at that time in a manual demonstrating the conduct of ballistics tests. A stain was noticed on his trousers. Subsequent tests of that spot and others on his trousers, undershirt, and a pair of gloves belonging to him showed that they were bloodstains. During a lengthy trial, additional evidence was adduced which it is not necessary to relate. At the close of the evidence the defendant filed a motion to suppress certain evidence and a motion for a directed verdict, both of which were denied.
The defendant has alleged six assignments of error which we consider seriatim.
333 Mass. 706, 712. These challenged photographs, some in color and some not, "had evidential value on a material matter, and were not made inadmissible because they could be considered inflammatory." Commonwealth v. Lamoureux, 348 Mass. 390, 393. See Commonwealth v. Devlin, 335 Mass. 555, 564. "Whether such evidence was so inflammatory in nature as to outweigh its probative value and preclude its admission is a question to be determined by the trial judge in the exercise of his sound discretion." Commonwealth v. D'Agostino, 344 Mass. 276, 279. The judge gave appropriate instructions to the jury at some length, both at the time the photographs were admitted and later in his charge, which adequately protected the defendant. There was no abuse of discretion in the admission of the photographs.
was merely cumulative. Commonwealth v. Ries, 337 Mass. 565, 584. Commonwealth v. Palladino, 346 Mass. 720, 725. There was no error.
3. During the course of the trial a hypothetical question was asked of a ballistics expert. The expert was asked by the district attorney to assume facts, all of which were already in evidence, and on these assumptions, in addition to his findings, to state whether he had an opinion as to whether the Astra which he tested and examined was the weapon used to kill the victim. The expert answered in the affirmative. Immediately thereafter the judge gave the jury instruction on the nature of a hypothetical question and answer and how the jury should evaluate their worth. See Dickenson v. Fitchburg, 13 Gray 546, 555-557; Anderson v. Albertstamm, 176 Mass. 87, 91-92; Sullivan v. Brabason, 264 Mass. 276, 288-289. See also M. DeMatteo Constr. Co. v. Daggett, 341 Mass. 252, 261. In addition the judge gave elaborate and careful instruction to the jury in his charge on the weight which they might or might not give to the several hypothetical questions directed to ballistics experts during the trial. While the question to which the defendant takes exception was somewhat inartistically phrased and contained possible omissions and irrelevancies, it was not so improperly phrased as to constitute prejudicial error. To a second and similar hypothetical question asked of another ballistics expert by the district attorney there was a similar answer given to the effect that this particular Astra was the weapon which caused the death of Washington. In neither case did the experts endeavor to judge the truth of the hypotheses upon which they based their opinions. There was in addition a bulk of evidence from other sources which tended to identify the Astra as the one from which the fatal shots were fired. We thus find no error in this assignment.
discretion of the trial judge. Commonwealth v. Sturtivant, 117 Mass. 122, 137. Perkins v. Stickney, 132 Mass. 217, 218. Commonwealth v. Spencer, 212 Mass. 438, 447-448. No error appears.
5. Trial commenced on June 23, 1965. On June 28, 1965, certain clothing belonging to the defendant was admitted in evidence without objection. On July 1, 1965, at the close of the evidence, the defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, i.e., the clothing. In the motion he recited that he knew the facts concerning the clothing on or about June 15, 1965, more than a week before trial.
The motion to suppress was not timely. See Commonwealth v. Laudate, 345 Mass. 169, 170; Commonwealth v. Lewis, 346 Mass. 373, 382; Segurola v. United States, 275 U.S. 106, 111-112. See now Rule 101B of the Superior Court (1954). We nonetheless consider the defendant's contention because of the gravity of the case, bearing in mind that "[o]n a motion to suppress the burden of establishing that evidence has been illegally obtained is on the moving party." Commonwealth v. Fancy, 349 Mass. 196, 202.
The defendant contends that one of the persons upon whom the two warrants were served was in "constructive possession" of the clothes and might be said to be a bailee. He argued, "This being the case, in the absence of proper service or notice the search warrant is illegal." United States v. Birrell, 242 F. Supp. 191 (S. D. N. Y.). In that case at pp. 198-200, the court held only that the defendant had standing to make timely objection to a search and a seizure of his property. The property there had been in control of the defendant's lawyer who had objected to the search and seizure at the time of its occurrence. However, assuming arguendo that the defendant here has standing to object to an illegal search and seizure, we find nothing in the record, motion or brief which impugns the legality of the warrants, the service of the warrants, or the searches or seizures.
searches were made by either of the persons who surrendered the clothing. Proper warrants were in the possession of the searching officers and the officers so announced at the time they were permitted to enter and search. Though neither person in control of the clothing requested to see a warrant or challenged the search, the officers had one of those persons read the warrant before the articles of clothing named in the warrant were taken from the searched premises. Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 306-314. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 37. People v. Maddox, 46 Cal. 2d 301, 304-307. See Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 349 Mass. 626, 634. See also G. L. c. 276, Sections 1, 2, 3, 3A; 15 Maine Rev. Sts. Annotated, Sections 53, 54, 55; 18 U. S. C. Section 3109 (1964). No error appears.
v. Fancy, 349 Mass. 196, 200. Third, the defendant further states that the Commonwealth failed to show that he was near the scene of the crime alleged and that he, and no one else, committed the crime. While it is true that there was no eyewitness to the crime and that the evidence comprised a large number of facts which joined together convinced the jury of his guilt the chain of circumstantial evidence in this case was extremely strong and was such as properly to persuade a jury. There was no error in denying the motion for a directed verdict. See Commonwealth v. Richmond, 207 Mass. 240, 246-247.
7. In accordance with the responsibility laid upon us by G. L. c. 278, Section 33E, we have reviewed the evidence with care, have noted the skill with which both prosecution and defence presented their cases and the comprehensive charge of the judge, and are of the opinion that justice does not require that there be a new trial.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v.