Case Name: Commonwealth versus George Crowninshield
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1830-11
Citations: 10 Pick. 497
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth versus George Crowninshield.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 507–509

Head Matter:
Commonwealth versus George Crowninshield.
To make the action and declarations of a conspirator, in furtherance of the common object, admissible in evidence against a co-conspirator, it is sufficient that the conspiracy has been proved by a competent witness. The Court will not decide on his credibility.
A witness testified that the prisoner said, in the presence of the witness and R., that F. had offered him a sum of money if he would kill W. ; that the prisoner told F. he would give him an answer at a subsequent time ; that the prisoner offered the witness a third part of the money, if lie would commit the- murder ; that R. proposed a mode of doing it; that the witness declined having any tiling to do with it, and then the prisoner said he was in jest. In a few days after this conversation, the murder was actually perpetrated by F. It was held, that the proof that the prisoner and R. entered into the conspiracy, was sufficient to let in the declarations of R. as evidence against the prisoner.
Nov. 13&
Richard Crowninshield, J. Francis Knapp, Joseph J. Knapp and George Crovvninshield, the prisoner at the bar, were indicted for the murder of Joseph White on the 6th of April, 1830, the former as principals, and the two latter as accessories. The prisoner was now upon his trial as accessory to J. Francis Knapp, who had been convicted.
John C. R. Palmer testified to the following effect. On the 2d of April, 1830, I was at the chamber of George and Richard Crowninshield. At about 2 o’clock, J. Francis Knapp and one Allen came there. The Crowninshields, Francis and Allen walked away together, George and Francis being a little ahead of the other two. At 4 o’clock the Crowninshields returned to the chamber. George told Richard, that Francis said his brother Joseph J. Knapp wished him (George) to kill Joseph White of Salem. George said Francis told him that Joseph K. would pay $ 1000 to any individual who would commit the act. George said White had gone to his farm in Beverly. George said he told Francis he could not give him an answer now, but that he would see him again at 8 o’clock and would then give him an answer. George asked me if I would kill White, saying that I was in want of funds and that this would be a good lime to supply my wants. Richard told me it would be a good time to go out and meet White and overturn his carriage ; that he was so old, this must inevitably kill him. George told me, if I would kill White, I should llave one third of the sum which the Knapps were, to» give him I said I would have nothing to do with the affair. Richard told George, that what he had said was too poor a story to be palmed off upon him and me. George then said he had made April fools of us. Richard then said, yesterday was fool’s day ; upon which George said he, had made a fool of himself, and laughed. In the evening between 6 and 7 o’clock, Francis returned, and took Richard away with him.
The witness was going on to state what Richard said at that time, George not being present.
Hoar and Shillaber, of counsel for the prisoner, objected that there was not proof of a conspiracy between George, Richard and Francis, so as to make such declarations of Richard admissible as evidence against George. George had not agreed with Francis that he would commit the murder or procure it to be done, but, on the contrary, he told Francis he would give him an answer at 8 o’clock. The proposition to Palmer might well be made while George was undetermined ; and if Palmer had signified his assent, that perhaps would have induced George to engage in the plot. But taking the whole conversation together, it shows that George did not consider the offer to Palmer as a serious proposal. Before any act of a supposed co-conspirator shall be allowed to affect the prisoner, we offer to show that the testimony of this witness is not credible, on account of his infamy.
Davis (Solicitor-General) contended that the evidence of a conspiracy, though not conclusive, was yet sufficient to let in the declarations. 2 Stark. Ev. 401, 403 and notes. He added, that Francis had been convicted as a principal in the murder ; which had already been proved in the case.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
If there was a conspiracy, it would be immaterial by which of the conspirators the murder should be committed. Taking the testimony of Palmer to be in the case, there is a proposition by Francis to George to commit the murder. George communicates it to Richard. There is evidence of the murder having been perpetrated by Francis as principal. The main object has been effected. The question is, whether George and Richard conspired to effect it. George states in the presence of Richard and the witness the proposition made by Francis. He urges the witness to participate in the murder, and Richard proposes a mode of executing it. George adds in presence of Richard, that if the witness perform it, he should have one third of the reward offered. This would seem to be a proposition by George to pay one third. Richard was assenting, inasmuch as he proposed a mode of doing the murder, and if Palmer assented, the reward was to be divided between the three. We are of opinion that here is sufficient evidence to show that Richard and George came into an agreement so far as the deed was to be done by the hand of the witness, and it is immaterial by whose hand it was afterwards effected. We think the declarations in question are to be admitted as evidence against George. The objection to the credibility of the witnéss, does not apply to the point before us. It is true, the question of the admissibility of the declarations is to be determined by the Court, but it is to be determined upon competent testimony. The objection against this witness affects only his credit.
See 2 Phil. Ev. (Cowen & Hill's ed.) 177 et seq., in notes; Roscoe's Crim. Ev. (Am. ed.) 60 et seq.; American Fur Co. v. U. States, 2 Peters,364; Snyder v. Laframbois, 1 Breese, 269; Wilbur v. Strickland, 1 Rawle, 458; Reitenback v. Reitenback, 1 Rawle, 362; Martin v. Commonwealth, 2 Leigh. 745.
Shaw C. J. did not sit in the cause.