Com. v. Mobley
| Decision Date | 12 March 1976 |
| Citation | 369 Mass. 892,344 N.E.2d 181 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Marvin MOBLEY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Peter Larkowich, Quincy, for defendant.
Richard A. Hannaway, Asst. Dist. Atty., Boston, for the Commonwealth.
Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and REARDON, QUIRICO, BRAUCHER and WILKINS, JJ.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of armed robbery after a jury trial in the Superior Court, and was sentenced to a term of six to fifteen years at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole. In this appeal, which is brought under G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A--33G, the defendant asserts that pre-trial identification procedures were so unconstitutionally suggestive as to require the exclusion of subsequent in-court identification by the robbery victim. The Superior Court judge denied the defendant's motion to suppress the out-of-court and in-court identification testimony and the defendant excepted. He also claims error in the exclusion of a question addressed by defense counsel to a witness in cross-examination, and in intentional underinclusion of women in the grand jury which returned the indictment against him. We conclude that there was no error.
The facts presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress the identification testimony were as follows. At about 4:15 P.M., November 28, 1973, a black male, later identified as the defendant, walked into the office area of the Burger King restaurant on Brighton Avenue in Allston, where assistant, Jerry Russeau, were both sitting the manger, Jeffrey M. Weston, and his at a desk working. The office area consisted of a small room, approximately eight feet by twelve feet, situated at the rear of the dining room area of the restaurant.
The robber pointed a gun at Weston and Russeau and demanded money. Weston replied that he did not have any money in the office. The robber then pushed Russeau's head down onto the desk and held the gun at Russeau's neck. At that time, the robber was two to three feet away from Weston.
Both men protested that there was no money in the back office, but that it was in the front room. The robbert then threw a brown paper bag on the desk, ordered Weston to get the money, and threatened to blow off Russeau's head if he (Weston) 'pull(ed) anything.'
Weston removed all the money from the safe and the cash drawer in the front room. When he returned he found Russeau lying face down on the floor outside the office area with the robber bending over him. The robber remained bent over throughout the entire episode, and was, again, approximately two to three feet away from Weston. The latter handed the money to the robber. The robber asked whether that was all the money they had. Weston told him there was some rolled coin left in the office if he wanted it. The robber said he wanted it, at which point the manager went into the rear office, returning with about $200 in rolled coin, which he handed over to the robber. Weston was then told to lie down on the floor, and the robber fled through the rear door of the building.
The area where the robbery occurred had overhead fluorescent lights and the lighting was excellent. The robbery itself took approximately six to nine minutes. Weston testified that he clearly observed the robber for three to six minutes.
Weston described the robber to the police as a black male in his late teens or early twenties, approximately five feet nine inches tall, wearing khaki or light-colored pants, a blue knit ski cap ('stocking cap') and a maroon nylon jacket with some writing on it.
The next morning, November 29, 1973, Officer Manfra telephoned Weston and told him he wanted to show him some photographs to see whether the robber was in the group. The officer, along with other officers, came to the restaurant. He placed about six pictures on a table. Weston thumbed through them once or twice. He selected only one picture, that of the defendant, identifying him as the robber. Although this was the only picture in the group of a male wearing a ski cap, the rest being bareheaded, Weston could not recall which figure in the six pictures wore the ski hat since he did not focus on that detail in particular.
The police then gave Weston another group of pictures showing an unrelated armed robbery being committed. Weston again selected a picture of the defendant. None of the officers present engaged in any conversation about the pictures shown during this identification.
The defendant at this time had not been arrested, questioned, or suspected by the police of having committed this crime. He was arrested shortly after the identifications.
At a probable cause hearing held at the Municipal Court of the Brighton District three to four weeks after the robbery, Weston saw the defendant in the dock. Weston positively identified the defendant as the robber. No suggestions about the identification of the defendant were made to Weston by anyone at this hearing.
1. There was no error in the denial of the defendant's motion to suppress the identification testimony (both in-court and out-of-court) of the witness Weston. It is clear from the judge's findings of fact at the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence, all of which we conclude were warranted on the evidence, that he correctly evaluated the photographic identification procedures in light of the totality of circumstances in the case. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 383--384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). The judge concluded that there was 'nothing whatsoever by way of tainted suggestiveness in the out-of-court photographic identification.' This determination in a practical sense was a ruling which disclosed an analysis sufficient to meet the requirements of the Simmons case, viz. that photographic identification procedures are constitutionally invalid if the procedures were 'so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.' Id. at 384, 88 S.Ct. at 971.
In his findings the judge placed appropriate emphasis on several particulars, and in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Clark
...from most of the others, he chose the photograph solely because of the man's facial characteristics. See Commonwealth v. Mobley, 369 Mass. 892, 894-895, 344 N.E.2d 181 (1976). Significantly, the defendant's photograph was not the only snapshot in the array, and Hunter Rejected the other sin......
-
Com. v. Hicks
...disturbed the judge was not the slight discrepancies in absolute heights (one to three inches--compare, e.g., Commonwealth v. Mobley, 369 Mass. 892, 896 n. 1, 344 N.E.2d 181 [1976] [discrepancy of four inches]; Commonwealth v. Gordon, 6 Mass.App. at 238, 374 N.E.2d 1228 [discrepancy of "pos......
-
Com. v. Paszko
...Mass. 516, 523-524, 350 N.E.2d 444 (1976) (witness shown a dozen photographs including two of the defendant); Commonwealth v. Mobley, 369 Mass. 892, 896-897, 344 N.E.2d 181 (1976) (witness shown six photographs including one of the defendant, then shown second array including photograph of ......
-
Com. v. Clifford
...the defendant would not be impermissibly singled out for wearing a jacket similar to the one used during the crime. Cf. Commonwealth v. Mobley, 369 Mass. ---, --- e, 344 N.E.2d 181 (1976). Furthermore, the judge's conclusion was bolstered by his finding that the danger of misidentification ......