Source: http://masscases.com/cases/app/2/2massappct890.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:35:42+00:00

Document:
COMMONWEALTH vs. BRYAN HANDS (and a companion case [Note 1]).
These two cases are here, following convictions of robbery, on the defendants' exceptions to the denial of their respective motions to suppress the anticipated (and subsequently admitted) in-court identifications of them by the victim of the robbery. We have carefully reviewed the evidence at the pre-trial hearing held on the motions and concur with the conclusion stated by the judge that "there . . . [was] clear and convincing evidence that an in-Court identification would not be tainted by the so-called cell block identification" (which was suppressed). United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 240 (1967). Commonwealth v. Leaster, 362 Mass. 407 , 415 (1972). Commonwealth v. Murphy, 362 Mass. 542 , 547-548 (1972). Commonwealth v. Flaherty, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 282 , 285-288 (1973).
[Note 1] Commonwealth vs. Roy L. Thigpen.
COMMONWEALTH vs. FRANK P. MERANDA.
was neither directly proven nor inferable beyond a reasonable doubt. One who violated the terms of his furlough by failing to return at its expiration could be convicted of a violation of said Section 16. (See now St. 1973, c. 1062, Section 1.) Commonwealth v. Hughes, 364 Mass. 426 (1973). While wrongful intent is a necessary element of the crime of escape, see Commonwealth v. Gosselin, 365 Mass. 116 , 121 (1974); see also Chandler v. United States, 378 F. 2d 906 (9th Cir. 1967); Riley v. State, 16 Conn. 47 (1843); Cassady v. State, 247 Ark. 690, 693 (1969); Gallegos v. People, 159 Colo. 379 (1966), intent will be inferred from the unlawful departure -- or, as in this case, the unauthorized extension of the period of the furlough -- in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. Perkins, Criminal Law, 504-505 (2d ed. 1969). State v. Clark, 32 Nev. 145, 152 (1909). Wiggins v. State, 194 Ind. 118 (1923). See Fanning v. United States, 72 F. 2d 929, 932 (4th Cir. 1934). The only aspect of the stipulated facts tending to negate the defendant's culpable intent was the telephone call stating that the defendant would be two hours late, the source of the call was unidentified and the truth of its content unverified. The defendant did not return at that time but voluntarily returned to custody a full day later. The trial judge was free to draw inferences from these facts but was not required to find that they constituted a satisfactory explanation. In his second contention, the defendant urges us to disregard Commonwealth v. Hughes, supra, and Commonwealth v. Hickson, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 870 (1974). We decline the defendant's invitation to do so. See Burke v. Toothaker, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 234 , 240 (1973). An additional claim made by the defendant, that a substantial variance existed between the indictment which alleged that he "did break therefrom [the Massachusetts Correctional Institution] and escape," and the proof, which showed that he was on furlough and thus could not in fact "break therefrom," was disposed of by the Hughes case, at 430-431.

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