[Download] "Commonwealth v. Martin" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Commonwealth v. Martin
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 28, 1939
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 64 KB
Description
RONAN, Justice. The defendant was convicted upon two complaints, one charging a violation of G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 139, § 4, by the maintenance of a nuisance in keeping a tenement used for prostitution, assignation and lewdness, and the second with a violation of G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 272, § 6, by knowingly permitting a female to be upon certain premises in the control of the defendant for the purpose of unlawfully having sexual intercourse. In answer to a motion for a bill of particulars in the first case the Commonwealth furnished the defendant with the address of the premises mentioned in the complaint and the name of the person alleged to have committed acts of prostitution, and specified that unlawful sexual intercourse took place in the defendant's tenement. It declined to furnish the name of every person committing an act of lewdness and very act of lewdness or assignation intended to be charged. In the second case, the Commonwealth specified the address of the premises, the name of the woman alleged to be permitted to remain upon them, and that unlawful sexual intercourse was intended to be charged to this woman. The Commonwealth refused to specify the acts by which the female was induced to resort to the premises or the identity of the person with whom she resorted to the said premises. The Judge was right in refusing to require the Commonwealth to file further particulars. One who is charged in the words of the statute with maintaining a nuisance by keeping a disorderly house and is furnished with the location of the place used for the alleged nuisance, the nature of the acts that occurred in the place, and the name of the person committing such acts, has been fully, clearly and substantially informed of the nature of the offence charged. It is the use of the premises that is condemned by the statute, and whether the names of those participating in such use and their specific contribution to the use made of the premises should be furnished to the defendant were matters for the sound discretion of the trial Judge. In the cases at bar there was no error in the action of the Judge in regard to the bills of particulars. Commonwealth v. King, 202 Mass. 379, 88 N.E. 454; Commonwealth v. Cline, 213 Mass. 225, 100 N.E. 358; Commonwealth v. Anderson, 245 Mass. 177, 139 N.E. 436; Commonwealth v. Mercier, 257 Mass. 353, 153 N.E. 834; Commonwealth v. Randall, 260 Mass. 303, 157 N.E. 354; Commonwealth v. St. John, 261 Mass. 510, 159 N.E. 599; Commonwealth v. Lombardo, 271 Mass. 41, 170 N.E. 813.