Com. v. Bell
| Decision Date | 30 October 1969 |
| Citation | 356 Mass. 724,252 N.E.2d 414 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Joseph H. BELL, Jr. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Robert A. Novick and Reuben Goodman, Boston, for defendant.
Garrett H. Byrne, Dist. Atty., Theodore A. Glynn, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty. and John M. Lynch, III, Legal Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
Bell's appeals from his convictions on two indictments charging respectively armed robbery and robbery following a trial under G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A--33G, inclusive, are based exclusively upon assignments of error that in-court identifications of him by witnesses were inadmissible under United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, and Stovall v. Denno, Warden, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, all recently discussed in Commonwealth v. Bumpus, 354 Mass. 494, 238 N.E.2d 343, and Commonwealth v. Cooper, Mass., 248 N.E.2d 253. a The judge, following an all day voir dire which he ably guided to the significant factors (see United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 241, 87 S.Ct. 1926) concluded that the identifications to be made in court by three of the witnesses were based on observations made by them at the time of the robberies independent of any confrontation after the robberies. Assuming, arguendo, that the pre-trial identifications made by the witnesses were constitutionally infirm, our consideration of the evidence heard by the judge at the voir dire which we deem to be 'clear and convincing' (see United States v. Wade, at 240, 87 S.Ct. 1926) satisfies us 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705) that the judge's conclusion was right. Commonwealth v. Cooper, Mass., 248 N.E.2d 253, b and cases cited.
Judgments affirmed.
a. Mass.Adv.Sh. (1969) 857.
b. Pp. 865--866.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Leaster
...(1972) 775.b. Mass.Adv.Sh. (1972) 591, 596.1 See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 355 Mass. 620, 621--622, 246 N.E.2d 669; Commonwealth v. Bell, 356 Mass. 724, 252 N.E.2d 414; Commonwealth v. Frank, 357 Mass. 250, 253--254, 257 N.E.2d 919; Commonwealth v. Balukonis, 357 Mass. 721, 725, 260 N.E.2d ......
-
Stone v. Essex County Newspapers, Inc.
.... . . But such terms are too vague to serve generally as a practical guide in the trial of cases.' Cf. Commonwealth v. Bell, 356 Mass. 724, 725, 252 N.E.2d 414, (1969). In my view, we could accommodate our trial practice to the evidentiary requirements of New York Times Co., Rosenbloom, and......
-
Commonwealth v. Estabrook
...in-court identification is derived from a source independent of a prior suppressed identification. See Commonwealth v. Bell, 356 Mass. 724, 724–725, 252 N.E.2d 414 (1969). The independent source rule applied in this case, however, is more akin to the inevitable discovery rule, to which we h......
-
Com. v. Tempesta
...for suppressing the in-court identification. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 355 Mass. 620, 622, 246 N.E.2d 669; Commonwealth v. Bell, 356 Mass. 724, 725, 252 N.E.2d 414; Commonwealth v. Cefalo, 357 Mass. 255, 257--258, 257 N.E.2d 921. See also Commonwealth v. Preston, Mass., 268 N.E.2d 922. ......