Commonwealth v. Corkin
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Brown (New York Court of General Session of the Peace 1912)
- Battles v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1910)
- People v. Seaman (Mich. 1895)
- Commonwealth v. Hersey (Mass. 1949)
- Commonwealth v. Cheng (Mass. 1941)
- Commonwealth v. Stone (Mass. 1938)
- State v. Guaraneri (R.I. 1937)
- State v. Montifoire (Vt. 1922)
- People v. Hobbs (Ill. 1921)
- People v. Guaragna (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
- People v. Hagenow (Ill. 1908)
- Young v. United States (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory 1907)
- Commonwealth v. Sinclair (Mass. 1907)
- Smartt and Carson v. State (Tenn. 1903)
- Weston v. Barnicoat (Mass. 1900)
- Commonwealth v. Kennedy (Mass. 1897)
- Commonwealth v. Noble (Mass. 1895)
- Commonwealth v. Tibbetts (Mass. 1893)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The indictment must be construed as alleging that the defendant unlawfully used an instrument with intent to procure the miscarriage of a woman named; and it sufficiently describes the instrument, and the manner in which the defendant used it. This is a sufficient description of the statutory offence of using an instrument with intent to procure thfe miscarriage of a woman.
The evidence objected to was clearly competent for the purpose for which it was admitted. Whether it was of acts which formed part of the principal transaction, or of acts of the defendant at other times, it tended to prove attempts of the defendant to procure the identical result the intent to procure which constituted the gist of the offence charged, — that is, to prove the intent which was charged in the indictment. Being competent to prove the crime charged, it is no objection that it also tended
Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.