Source: http://masscases.com/cases/app/6/6massappct867.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 14:41:23+00:00

Document:
COMMONWEALTH vs. SAMUEL L. JACOBS.
the applicant's record for the prior two years only. On redirect, and again on further redirect, defense counsel questioned Jacobs about his record and the license requirements. The court found that Jacobs had put his own credibility in issue on the question of his record and allowed the district attorney to ask Jacobs, "Are you telling this Court and jury that you have no record with the Massachusetts Board of Probation?" When Jacobs' answer was equivocal, the district attorney showed Jacobs a copy of his probation record, and eventually elicited from him that there was a record of a criminal proceeding against him in a District Court which had been appealed and dismissed in the Superior Court. Jacobs argues that the judge erred in allowing evidence of his probation record which was not admissible under G. L. c. 233, Section 21. It was not intended that this evidence be admissible under G. L. c. 233, Section 21, nor was it so admitted. The judge permitted the prosecution to question Jacobs on the issue only because on direct examination the defense had injected that line of inquiry into the case which, if unquestioned, could have left the jury with a false impression. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 342 Mass. 180, 186 (1961). Evidence of past criminal activity, not admissible under c. 233, Section 21, may be independently admissible under another theory. Commonwealth v. West, 312 Mass. 438, 440-441 (1942). Commonwealth v. Redmond, 357 Mass. 333, 337 (1970). Commonwealth v. Killelea, 370 Mass. 638, 650 (1976). Leach & Liacos, Massachusetts Evidence 124-126 (1967). The evidence of Jacobs' probation record was admissible for impeachment by contradiction. See generally Hughes, Evidence Section 243 (1961). 3. We discern no error in the judge's ruling that Hayward had voluntarily consented to the attachment of transmission and recording devices to his body. Testimony revealed that the police had fully informed Hayward that those steps were necessary and had explained how the devices worked. Hayward allowed the devices to be attached on five separate occasions. The evidence was sufficient to show consent under the standards of United States v. Bonanno, 487 F.2d 654, 657-659 (2d Cir. 1973), which are controlling here though the conversations were recorded via devices attached to Hayward's body rather than to a telephone. See United States v. Rich, 518 F.2d 980, 985 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 427 U.S. 907 (1976). 4. Jacobs argues that the judge erred in excluding evidence showing the circumstances which led to allegedly extortionate statements. Jacobs failed to except to two evidentiary rulings which he now challenges; and as we perceive no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice from the exclusion, we refuse to review those rulings. Commonwealth v. Foley, 358 Mass. 233, 236 (1970). Jacobs did except to the exclusion of his testimony concerning a conversation with Hayward. That testimony was excluded as hearsay; and Jacobs has cited no exception to the hearsay rule under which it should have been admitted. See Commonwealth v. Fatalo, 345 Mass. 85, 87 (1962). Nor has he pointed to any evidence in support of his claim of bias on the part of the judge. King v. Grace, 293 Mass. 244, 246-247 (1936).

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