Russian roulette

[GSG]

No, this isn't one of those "I have a friend" posts.

I was researching another area of Mass. gun case law and I stumbled across this case, Commonwealth v. Atencio. It's an old case, but an interesting one regardless. I'll quote some of the interesting parts below.

The cases, which arose out of a "game" of "Russian roulette," are here on appeals pursuant to G. L. c. 278, Sections 33A-33G, as amended, accompanied by a summary of the record, a transcript of the evidence, and assignments of error. The defendants argue assignments of error in the denial of motions for directed verdicts on each indictment, in the charge, and in the failure to give one of their requests for instructions.

Facts which the jury could have found are these. On Sunday, October 22, 1961, the deceased, his brother Ronald, and the defendants spent the day drinking wine in the deceased's room in a rooming house in Boston. At some time in the afternoon, with reference to nothing specific so far as the record discloses, Marshall said, "I will settle this," went out, and in a few minutes returned clicking a gun, from which he removed one bullet. Early in the evening Ronald left, and the conversation turned to "Russian roulette."

The evidence as to what happened consisted of testimony of police officers, who took statements of the defendants, and testimony of one defendant, Atencio. The evidence did not supply all the facts. For example, the source and ownership of the revolver were not made clear. The jury could have found that it was produced by the deceased and that he suggested the "game," or they might have found neither to be the fact. There was evidence that Marshall earlier had seen the revolver in the possession of the deceased, and that the latter handed it to Marshall, who put it in the bathroom under the sink. Later when the deceased accused him of stealing it, he brought it back from the bathroom, and gave it to the deceased. Any uncertainty is not of prime importance. The "game" was played. The deceased and Atencio were seated on a bed, and Marshall was seated on a couch. First, Marshall examined the gun, saw that it contained one cartridge, and, after spinning it on his arm, pointed it at his head, and pulled the trigger. Nothing happened. He handed the gun to Atencio, who repeated the process, again without results. Atencio passed the gun to the deceased, who spun it, put it to his head, and pulled the trigger. The cartridge exploded, and he fell over dead.

and later

3. We are of opinion that the temporary possession of the revolver shown by the defendants during the game is not a carrying of a firearm on the person within the meaning of G. L. c. 269, Section 10, as amended. The idea conveyed by the statute is that of movement, "carries on his person or under his control in a vehicle." The motions for directed verdicts on the indictments for carrying a revolver on the person should have been granted.

4. The judgments on the indictments for manslaughter are affirmed. The judgments on the indictments for carrying a revolver on the person are reversed, and the verdicts on those indictments are set aside.

I thought it was an interesting way of interpreting the law.

Oh, and for the rest of you who are law geeks like me, you can read up on all kinds of cases at http://www.masscases.com/. The best part is, you can search cases by keyword, and it's a lot simpler than Findlaw (you don't have to sign up or anything, just search for free).