Commonwealth v. Heard

Commonwealth v. Robert Heard

Commonwealth v. Heard, 275 N.E.2d 32 (Mass. 1971)

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: November 1, 1971
Citations: 275 N.E.2d 32360 Mass. 8551971 Mass. LEXIS 1020

Cited by 5 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The defendant appeals in cases heard under G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, from convictions of assault and battery on a police officer, of unlawfully carrying a dangerous weapon when arrested for breach of peace, and of being an idle and disorderly person. A jury could have found that the defendant, six feet, seven inches tall, and weighing 371 pounds, on September 25, 1969, was making insulting and obscene remarks to people waiting for an M. B. T. A. train at Dudley Street station, Roxbury, and that when asked to leave the station by members of the transit police force engaged in a scuffle with them, during which one of the policemen sustained a broken bone in the left hand. The jury also could have found that the defendant was carrying a knife when arrested by police. There is no error. References to the Black Panther Party which entered were at the behest of the defendant and not the prosecution, and in any event the judge’s charge provided ample protection to the defendant. Furthermore, there was no error in the judge's refusal to ask the veniremen on voir dire, at the defendant’s request, some forty-four questions, many of which were utterly pointless. The trial judge has broad discretion in this area. Commonwealth, v. Taylor, 327 Mass. 641, 646-647 . Commonwealth v. Ricard, 355 Mass. 509, 511 . The jury’s verdicts were not tainted because the prosecution in its argument referred to the defendant as a “bully.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 342 Mass. 180, 188 . We see no point in discussing other errors assigned by the defendant.

Judgments affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(“The jury’s verdicts were not tainted because the prosecution in its argument referred to the defendant as a ‘bully’ ”)

Commonwealth v. Lepper, 798 N.E.2d 1030 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003)

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts5

Relies on it most ⓘ

Commonwealth v. Barras322 N.E.2d 427 (Mass. App. Ct. 1975)
Commonwealth v. Lepper798 N.E.2d 1030 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003)
Commonwealth v. LeBlanc334 N.E.2d 647 (Mass. App. Ct. 1975)
Commonwealth v. White311 N.E.2d 81 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)
Commonwealth v. King351 N.E.2d 549 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)

Most recent

Commonwealth v. Lepper798 N.E.2d 1030 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003)
Commonwealth v. King351 N.E.2d 549 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)
Commonwealth v. LeBlanc334 N.E.2d 647 (Mass. App. Ct. 1975)
Commonwealth v. Barras322 N.E.2d 427 (Mass. App. Ct. 1975)
Commonwealth v. White311 N.E.2d 81 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Commonwealth v. Smith, 172 N.E.2d 597 (Mass. 1961)	57
	Commonwealth v. Ricard, 246 N.E.2d 433 (Mass. 1969)	46
	Commonwealth v. Taylor, 100 N.E.2d 22 (Mass. 1951)	40

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list