From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Commonwealth v. O'Brien
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
645 N.E.2d 1170 (1995)
Robert O’Brien (defendant) was charged with the murder of Sean Shanahan, an infant. The issue of when Sean started to exhibit cold symptoms was crucial to O’Brien’s case because O’Brien claimed that the symptoms were not of a cold but of a head injury. The prosecution (plaintiff) called the infant’s mother, Carol Shanahan, as a witness. On direct examination, Shanahan testified that she did not see Sean on October 2, the day he died, from the morning until around dinner time when she got home from work. She testified that at that point, Sean had a runny nose but no other cold symptoms. This testimony contrasted with a statement Shanahan gave to police on October 7, in which she stated that she had checked on Sean in the afternoon of October 2 and that he was wheezing, gasping, and hoarse. On cross-examination, O’Brien reiterated that she had not seen Sean on October 2 until the evening. Shanahan testified that she could not recall telling the police that she had checked on Sean in the afternoon or that Sean was wheezing, gasping, and hoarse. On redirect examination, Shanahan gave a reason for this inconsistency, stating that she was extremely upset on October 7 when she gave the statement to the police, having just buried her son. In response to this redirect, O’Brien sought to engage in recross-examination to ask Shanahan about a second statement she had made, in preparation for trial. This second statement, which was similar to Shanahan’s October 7 statement to the police and thus helpful to O’Brien, was not in evidence. The trial judge declined to permit the recross-examination, ruling that the subject matter was beyond the scope of the redirect examination because the redirect examination did not discuss the second statement. O’Brien was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and he appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Liacos, C.J.)
Dissent (O’Connor, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 616,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 616,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.