From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Prince

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Mar 31, 1976
344 N.E.2d 201 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)

Opinion

March 31, 1976.

The case was submitted on briefs.

Joseph F. Flynn for the defendant.

William T. Buckley, District Attorney, Thomas X. Cotter, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.


There was no error in the admission de bene of the wife's testimony as to the purchase price of the three-year old television set her husband had purchased. The purchase price was relevant evidence in determining the value of the set. Schneider v. Hayward, 231 Mass. 352, 357 (1918). "There is wide discretion in the trial judge to determine what evidence of value shall be deemed admissible in the circumstances." Salter v. Leventhal, 337 Mass. 679, 691 (1958). Any objection based on hearsay was waived by the failure to make a motion to strike the testimony after it became apparent that her knowledge of the sale was secondhand. Commonwealth v. Johnson. 199 Mass. 55, 59 (1908). Brek's Case, 335 Mass. 144, 149 (1956). See also Commonwealth v. Early, 349 Mass. 636, 637 (1965). In any event, in all the circumstances, the admission of the testimony was harmless. The second assignment of error is waived.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Prince

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Mar 31, 1976
344 N.E.2d 201 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Prince

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH vs. ROBERT W. PRINCE

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Mar 31, 1976

Citations

344 N.E.2d 201 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)
344 N.E.2d 201

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Wood

The defendant failed to make a motion to strike the testimony after it might have become apparent (to him)…

Commonwealth v. Civello

As the defendant conceded at oral argument, in the absence of such a motion, the objection is waived and the…