## Facts

- Dr. John W. Webster, a Harvard College chemistry professor, was indicted for the murder of Dr. George Parkman, a Boston physician and creditor.
- Parkman disappeared after going to see Webster to collect a debt.
- Human remains believed to be Parkman’s were found in areas connected to Webster’s rooms at Harvard Medical College, along with other physical and chemical indications.
- The prosecution’s case relied on circumstantial evidence; there was no eyewitness to the killing.
- A jury convicted Webster of murder in a capital trial; Webster filed exceptions challenging multiple trial rulings and instructions.

## Issues

1. Whether a murder indictment alleging killing “by means, instruments, and weapons, to the jurors unknown” is sufficiently specific when the manner of death cannot be determined.
2. Whether the defendant’s peremptory challenges in a capital case had to be exercised before the court’s voir dire examination about bias and prior opinions.
3. Whether jurors were disqualified for (a) having some pretrial opinion or (b) opposition to capital punishment.
4. Whether the trial court could permit the jury to view relevant premises and control the order and manner of witness examination.
5. Whether expert handwriting comparison testimony was admissible regarding anonymous letters allegedly written in a disguised hand, and what limits applied to such opinion testimony.
6. What instructions governed proof beyond a reasonable doubt and when circumstantial evidence can support conviction, including allocation of burdens once a killing is proved.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts overruled the defendant’s exceptions and affirmed the conviction and death sentence.
- The indictment was held sufficient where greater specificity about means of death was not reasonably possible.
- The court upheld the timing rule requiring peremptory challenges to be taken before juror interrogation about bias and opinion.
- Jurors were not automatically disqualified for tentative opinions or opposition to capital punishment if they could decide based on law and evidence.
- The trial court had discretion to allow a jury view and to require witnesses to be fully examined at one appearance.
- Expert handwriting comparison opinion was generally admissible for disguised writing with reasons, but questioning could not extend to speculative identification of a particular instrument as the source of markings.
- The court approved the reasonable-doubt and circumstantial-evidence instructions and addressed burdens concerning excuse/justification after proof of killing.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal pleadings require “such certainty as the nature of the case will reasonably admit”; when the means of killing cannot be known, alleging means “to the jurors unknown” may be sufficient.
- In capital cases, peremptory challenges must be exercised at the prescribed stage before jurors are examined on bias and prior opinions.
- A juror’s prior opinion does not disqualify absent a fixed view likely to prevent candid judgment on the evidence; opposition to capital punishment does not disqualify if the juror can follow the law and render an unbiased verdict.
- The trial judge has discretion over trial administration, including permitting a jury view under controlled conditions and requiring complete examination of witnesses without piecemeal recall.
- Handwriting experts may compare disputed and known writings, including disguised handwriting, and state an opinion with supporting reasons; courts may limit questions that invite speculation about whether a particular instrument produced certain marks.
- Circumstantial evidence can support conviction if each necessary fact is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the facts are consistent with each other and the conclusion, and the combined circumstances are conclusive in leading to a satisfactory conclusion.
- Reasonable doubt is not mere possible doubt; conviction requires an abiding conviction to a moral certainty after considering all the evidence, and if reasonable doubt remains the defendant must be acquitted.
- After the prosecution proves the fact of killing, circumstances of accident, necessity, or infirmity must be satisfactorily established by the accused unless such circumstances appear from the prosecution’s evidence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Webster’s murder conviction, approving a widely cited formulation of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and explaining when circumstantial evidence may be sufficient, while also resolving challenges to indictment specificity, juror qualification and challenge procedure, trial-court discretion in managing proof, and the admissibility and limits of expert handwriting testimony.


Commonwealth v. Webster, 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 295 (1850)