Middlesex. Complaint received and sworn to in the District Court of Somerville on September 23, 1975. Upon appeal to the Superior Court, the case was tried before Hallisey, J.
Hale, C.j., Armstrong, & Brown, JJ. Brown, J., Concurring.
Larceny. Practice, Criminal, Collateral estoppel, Fair trial, Prosecutor's conflict of interest, Instructions to jury. Evidence, Sketch, Value, Opinion, Prior acquittal, Relevancy and materiality, Disclosure of evidence before grand jury. Witness, Impeachment.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hale
At the trial of a defendant charged with larceny, the prosecution was not precluded from introducing evidence of the theft by the fact that such evidence had been admitted at a previous trial of the defendant on similar charges, where the jury's verdict of acquittal at the first trial did not necessarily involve a determination whether the defendant had been involved in the theft at issue in the second trial. [588-590]
A defendant charged with the theft of property belonging to a telephone company was not entitled to a new trial by reason of the fact that, during the course of his trial, the prosecutor was offered a position as an attorney with the telephone company. [591-593] Brown, J., Concurring.
At a criminal trial, the Judge did not abuse his discretion in permitting the jury to view an artist's sketch depicting the scene of the crime. [593-594]
At the trial of a defendant charged with the theft of cable belonging to a telephone company, the Judge did not err in allowing an employee of the company to testify as to the value of the cable if sold for scrap. [594-595]
The Judge at a criminal trial did not abuse his discretion in refusing to dismiss the complaint because a prosecution witness allegedly violated a sequestration order. 
The Judge at a criminal trial did not err in excluding from evidence certified copies of records of the defendant's earlier acquittals on similar charges. 
At the trial of a defendant charged with the theft of cable belonging to a telephone company, the Judge did not err in permitting the Commonwealth to demonstrate the workings of a cable cutter. [595-596]
The Judge at a criminal trial did not err in admitting for impeachment purposes a statement handwritten by the defendant, portions of which were inconsistent with his testimony at trial. 
The Judge at a criminal trial did not err in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Commonwealth had improperly used the grand jury for investigatory rather than accusatory purposes. 
The Judge at a criminal trial, after allowing defense counsel to read to the jury portions of a witness's grand jury testimony which was exculpatory of the defendant, correctly refused to allow him to read the remainder of the transcript which was irrelevant to the defendant's case. [596-597]
The Judge at a criminal trial did not err in permitting the Commonwealth to introduce, for purposes of impeachment, testimony by a security guard concerning statements made to him by a defense witness. 
The Judge at a criminal trial did not err in denying the defendant's motion to be provided with a transcript of a prosecution witness's grand jury testimony where defense counsel did not request the transcript until he was in the midst of cross-examining the witness and the prosecutor did not have the transcript in his possession at the time of the request. [597-598]
At the trial of a defendant charged with larceny of cable belonging to a telephone company, there was sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that the defendant had intended permanently to deprive the telephone company of the cable. 
There was nothing so inflammatory or prejudicial in a prosecutor's comments during the course of a trial or in his closing arguments as to require ...