Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/295/295mass467.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:47:36+00:00

Document:
The fact that the defendant in a complaint charging violation of s. 24 of G. L. c. 90 as amended by St. 1932, c. 26, s. 1, knowingly collided with a motor vehicle as set forth in the complaint and left the scene of the accident without making known his name, residence and the registration number of his motor vehicle, was sufficient to support a verdict of guilty without proof that he knew that he had caused damage to the other vehicle or personal injury to any of its occupants.
COMPLAINT, received and sworn to in the Third District Court of Essex on November 23, 1935.
On appeal to the Superior Court, there was a trial before R. M. Walsh, J., a judge of a district court sitting in the Superior Court under statutory provisions. The defendant was found guilty and alleged exceptions.
C. D. Brown, for the defendant.
J. J. Ryan, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
FIELD, J. This is a complaint under G. L. c. 90, s. 24, as amended by St. 1932, c. 26, s. 1, charging that the defendant "did operate a motor vehicle upon a way . . . or in a place to which the public has a right of access and without stopping and making known his name, residence and the number of his motor vehicle, go away after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injuries to the vehicle or property of another and injuries to persons against the peace of said Commonwealth, and contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made and provided." On appeal the case was tried to a jury in the Superior Court. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced, and execution of the sentence was stayed pending the determination of exceptions taken at the trial.
The exceptions, so far as argued by the defendant, are to the refusal of the judge to give the following instructions to the jury requested by the defendant: "The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had actual knowledge, and not merely constructive knowledge, of having caused personal injury to any persons," and "The word 'knowingly' as used in s. 24 of c. 90 of the General Laws requires a consciousness on the part of the defendant of the fact that he had caused personal injuries to a person"; and to the following portion of the charge: "I charge you as a matter of law that if you find that the defendant knowingly collided with the Essex automobile, in which these women were riding, the fact that the defendant did not know that he in so colliding caused personal injury is immaterial. The fact, if you find it to be a fact, that the defendant knowingly collided with the car as set forth in the complaint and left the scene of the accident without making known his name, residence and the registration number of his motor vehicle, is sufficient to support a verdict of 'Guilty' in this case irrespective of whether or not he knew that he had caused personal injuries to the occupants of the car."
shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months nor more than two years."
wealth v. Horsfall, 213 Mass. 232; Commonwealth v. Coleman, 252 Mass. 241. Apparently one purpose of the change in the statute was to enlarge its scope so as to include the case of a collision even if the operator did not know that injury to any person or property was caused thereby. The statute in its present form naturally interpreted does not result in such obvious hardship as to indicate that the Legislature did not intend it to be so interpreted. The rule of strict construction of a penal statute does not require "that language be strained to reach a result favorable to the defendant." Commonwealth v. Tsouprakakis, 267 Mass. 496, 500. On the other hand it might reasonably be thought that a requirement, in the case of a collision, of proof of knowledge by the operator that injury resulted therefrom to any person or property would render the statute ineffective to carry out its purpose fully. It follows that proof that an operator knew that a collision of which he had knowledge resulted in such injury is not essential to support a conviction under either branch of the statute. Nothing in the previous decisions of this court requires a different conclusion.
for any formal defect therein. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 278, s. 17. Commonwealth v. McKnight, 283 Mass. 35, 38-39. Nor was there any request for an instruction distinguishing between the two branches of the statute. See Commonwealth v. Blaney, 133 Mass. 571, 572. Unnecessary allegations in the complaint need not be proved. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 277, s. 35, 79. Commonwealth v. Snow, 269 Mass. 598, 608. Therefore the requested instructions were refused rightly and the charge was correct.
The defendant properly has not argued his exception to the refusal of the judge to instruct the jury as requested by the defendant that "on all the evidence the defendant should be found 'Not Guilty.'" Whether a verdict should be ordered can be raised only by a motion. Rule 71 of the Superior Court (1932). Commonwealth v. Velleco, 272 Mass. 94, 99. We do not intimate, however, that this instruction considered on its merits was not refused rightly.

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