Com. v. Brown, 88-P-816

Citation27 Mass.App.Ct. 72,534 N.E.2d 806
Decision Date26 April 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-P-816,88-P-816
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. Maurice M. BROWN.
CourtAppeals Court of Massachusetts

Diana L. Maldonado, Committee for Public Counsel Services (Bruce R. Bono, Committee for Public Counsel Services, with her), Boston, for defendant.

Sharon B. Soffer, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Com.

Before PERRETTA, KAPLAN and SMITH, JJ.

KAPLAN, Justice.

Twelve persons lived in a second-floor, six-room apartment at 203 Columbia Road in the Dorchester district of Boston: Carol Joseph Headley and her three children; Carol's brother Carlton Joseph, his wife Louise, and their five children; and a friend, Ian Wade, whose house had recently "burned out." About 7:30 P.M., January 29, 1986, with all present in the apartment, there was a knock on the door, Carlton opened it, and three armed men, two of them masked, pushed their way in. The man without the mask, later identified (as we shall see) as the defendant, Maurice Brown, went through the rooms and ordered the occupants about, so that the twelve were disposed thus: in the living room, Carlton, under the guns of the masked men; in the front bedroom, all the rest except three of the children, covered by the other gunman; two of the three children in a back bedroom and the third in "Carol's room," all three unattended.

The masked men beat Carlton repeatedly and took from him gold chains and other valuables. At the same time the other gunman was seizing gold chains from Louise, and Ian Wade.

A gunshot sounded from the living room and a voice was heard, "I got shot." The gunman quit the front bedroom, threatening to shoot anyone who moved, and rushed to the living room. It was not Carlton who had been shot; when Carlton put up resistance, a gun in the hand of one of the assailants had gone off and wounded the other man. The three intruders fled the apartment and the man without a mask was observed by the child Caroline through a window as he entered a station wagon in the street below. The episode took about twenty minutes.

The captives in the front bedroom had their gunman in clear view. Carol described him as about seventeen or eighteen years old, five feet, seven or eight inches in height, slim build, dark-skinned, clean shaven, short hair, wearing jeans, pullover Adidas sweatshirt with hood, and jacket. 1 Others--Carlton, Ian, Barbara, and Caroline--gave similar or consistent descriptions; however, Barbara (aged thirteen at trial) and Caroline (eleven) (Carol's children) said the man had some facial hair, and Ian said he was five feet, ten inches tall and weighed about 165 pounds. In fact the defendant Brown was five feet, ten to eleven inches tall, aged twenty-two at trial, and according to his mother, sister, and girlfriend had been growing a little goatee and mustache since he was nineteen.

The police exhibited twenty-nine pictures of black males, aged eighteen to twenty-three, to six of the victims, Carol, Carlton and Louise Joseph, Caroline, Barbara, and Greisha (the Josephs' child, aged fifteen). The array was shown separately to each of the viewers, and precautions were taken against communication among them. Five picked out the picture of the defendant Brown. Louise was reluctant to look at the array and did not make a selection. Carol, Caroline, and Barbara pointed out Brown confidently at the trial as the man without a mask; Carlton said he was not absolutely certain; Greisha did not testify.

The foregoing will serve as a summary of the Commonwealth's case upon the trial of the charges mentioned in the margin. 2

On his part the defendant offered evidence of alibi. The girlfriend and the sister of Brown testified that he and the girlfriend were shopping for a waterbed on January 29 and returned to Brown's mother's house about 7:30 P.M. A receipt showed final payment on a waterbed from Waterrest Waterbeds on that date, but the name on the slip was that of the girlfriend, Lisa Evans; Brown's name did not appear and the salesperson did not remember that anyone accompanied Evans. The sister said she recalled the date because Brown was excited about buying the bed and had given her money to play the State's daily lottery. She said she bought a ticket and had the right number but discovered she could not turn it in because she bought the ticket too late to count that day, January 29. She remembered seeing the number on television at 7:55 in the company of Brown and Evans. The ticket, however, was not produced.

In light of the evidence summarized above, the judge correctly denied motions for required findings made at the close of the Commonwealth's case and again at the close of trial. The question for review arises on the judge's exclusion, after voir dire, of evidence offered by Brown intended to show that it was not he, but another man, a supposed look-alike, who committed the crimes in suit.

At voir dire one Keith Wilkie testified for the defense that a liquor store in the neighborhood, where he worked, was robbed on January 25. Two men entered the store. One wore a down jacket, which covered his upper body and arms, and a hat with flaps covering his ears. This man stuck a gun in Wilkie's face and ordered him to lie down on the floor. The second man drew a shotgun from his coat and ordered the store manager to lie down. The robbery was over in three minutes. At the police station, Wilkie examined about a hundred pictures. He thought Brown's face was a lot like that of the man in the down jacket, but he did not select the picture to make an identification. Brown evidently came under suspicion for the liquor store holdup by other means not disclosed at voir dire. 3 He was charged with armed robbery. As it happened, Wilkie...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Com. v. Scott
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1990
    ...evidence during the motion hearing which established that the method of operation of both crimes was similar. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 72, 76, 534 N.E.2d 806. (1989) ("[a]part from considerations of proximity in time and location, the instant and the similar crime must sha......
  • Com. v. Pimental
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • August 3, 2009
    ...716-717, 690 N.E.2d 815 (1998). See Commonwealth v. Scott, 408 Mass. 811, 816, 564 N.E.2d 370 (1990), quoting Commonwealth v. Brown, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 72, 76, 534 N.E.2d 806 (1989) ("Apart from considerations of proximity in time and location, the instant and the similar crime must share sing......
  • Com. v. Brusgulis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 18, 1990
    ...395 Mass. 296, 300, 479 N.E.2d 690 (1985); Commonwealth v. Keizer, 377 Mass. 264, 267, 385 N.E.2d 1001 (1979); Commonwealth v. Brown, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 72, 76, 534 N.E.2d 806 (1989). The standards for the admissibility of evidence of other crimes in these parallel situations have some similar......
  • Com. v. Perito
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 5, 1994
    ...where the offer of proof, inter alia, indicated that the defendant could not have perpetrated the crime); Commonwealth v. Brown, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 72, 76, 534 N.E.2d 806 (1989) ("there must be reasonable assurance that the defendant at bar did not commit the 'similar' offense, that it was in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT