The check was returned for insufficient funds, and at some time in December Grant paid for the modifications in cash. On November 2, 1981, Grant wrote a check for $151 to pay for the modifications. Grant alone picked up the final version of the box in late October. Grant requested certain further changes, including the addition of a lock which Grant had brought with him. Grant later returned with Donovan, who looked at the box. He paid $264.60 in cash and picked up the box he had ordered, but then returned a few days later and requested that modifications be made to it. Grant returned to the sheet metal factory about a week after his initial visit. Donovan allegedly told the Diebold employee that he wanted the parts to refurbish a night depository which he had salvaged from a junk yard. He stated that, in early October, 1981, a man he later identified as Donovan purchased several parts, including the locking mechanism, for a Diebold night deposit box. The district service manager for Diebold, Inc., in Plainview, New York, also testified.
BRIAN DONOVAN TRIAL
The foreman testified at trial that the box made for Grant was "similar" to a bank night deposit box. Grant told the foreman that the box was to be used as a paper shredder. Sheet Metal Company in Southbridge with a sketch of an aluminum box which he wanted constructed. One of the defendants had said that the scheme sounded like "a helluva'n idea." A few months later, on October 1, 1981, Grant went to the foreman of the M.G. In the summer of 1981, the manager of Dickin's Tavern in Sturbridge overheard a group of people, including Grant and Donovan, having a conversation about an individual who had attached a "phony" night deposit box to a bank, and who had then stolen and cashed the checks which had been deposited therein. The evidence adduced at trial is as follows. Nonetheless, we further conclude that the criminal conduct at issue here constitutes a single larceny, not seven separate larcenies, and thus we order the dismissal of six of the seven indictments brought against each defendant. We conclude that these two contentions are meritless. Moreover, the defendant Grant argues that the trial judge erred in admitting allegedly "surprise" testimony which implicated him in the crimes. Both defendants challenge their convictions on the ground that the trial judge erred in denying their motions for required findings of not guilty. A jury found Brian Donovan and Robert Grant guilty on each of seven indictments for larceny. Dillon, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. The Supreme Judicial Court granted a request for direct appellate review.ĭianne M. INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 17, 1981. Larceny which had been brought against each defendant. This court ordered the dismissal of six of the seven indictments for Into which funds were later placed by seven would-be depositors,Ĭonstituted a single crime, not seven distinct crimes, and, accordingly, Sufficient to warrant denial of the defendants' motions for requiredĪ larcenous scheme by two criminal defendants to place a false nightĭeposit box on the wall of a single bank building, on a single evening, The crime charged, and of the presence of a joint venture, was
Īt the trial of two defendants on indictments charging larceny, theĮvidence with respect to both the existence of the essential elements of In disclosing the existence of the witnesses was not caused by any badįaith of the prosecutor and where there was no showing that theĭefendant was prejudiced by the belated disclosure. Testimony implicating the defendant in certain crimes, where the delay
List of prosecution witnesses submitted to the defense prior to trialįailed to include the names of two "surprise" witnesses who later gave Present: HENNESSEY, C.J., WILKINS, NOLAN, LYNCH, & O'CONNOR, JJ.Ī criminal defendant was not entitled to a new trial on the ground that a BRIAN DONOVAN (and thirteen companion cases ).
0 kommentar(er)
