Com. v. Thornley

• Decision Date: 16 November 1989
• Citation: 406 Mass. 96,546 N.E.2d 350
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Ronald THORNLEY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 350

546 N.E.2d 350

406 Mass. 96

COMMONWEALTH v. Ronald THORNLEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,

Norfolk.

Argued May 2, 1989.

Decided Nov. 16, 1989.

Eric Brandt, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for defendant.

Charles J. Hely, Asst. Dist. Atty. (Stephanie Martin Glennon, Asst. Dist. Atty., with him), for the Com.

Before LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, ABRAMS, NOLAN, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.

ABRAMS, Justice.

In Commonwealth v. Thornley, 400 Mass. 355, 364, 509 N.E.2d 908 (1987) (Thornley I ), ¹ we remanded this matter to the Superior Court for "further analysis and findings of fact as to [a] photographic array." We asked the judge to determine whether the array was "sufficiently suggestive to constitute a deprivation of due process" pursuant to our opinion in Commonwealth v. Botelho, 369 Mass. 860, 343 N.E.2d 876 (1976), in accordance with the criteria set forth in Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 971, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968), and United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 241, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1939, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), and for reconsideration of the admissibility of the lineup identifications and the in-court identifications that followed the photographic array. Thornley I, supra 400 Mass. at 363-364, 509 N.E.2d 908.

In his original findings the motion judge found that "the photo array ... was only suggestive in that the defendant had glasses on. Otherwise, there was no suggestiveness." Id. at 363, 509 N.E.2d 908. He also found that no suggestiveness affected the identification procedures and ruled "that the Commonwealth had proved 'to a point beyond reasonable doubt' that the identifying witnesses were relying 'upon their view of the defendant on the night of the shooting.' " Id. On remand, without further hearing, the judge found that "the identifying witnesses had the opportunity to view the defendant for a considerable period of time" and that, although the defendant's glasses had become "a major issue," the identification of the defendant as Davis's assailant "was primarily an eyeball identification and was not wholly dependent on a photographic array nor on a composite sketch" (emphasis supplied).

The defendant appeals from the further findings claiming that (1) the original photographic identifications were impermissibly suggestive because both witnesses already had described the suspect as a man wearing glasses, the defendant's photograph was the only one showing a man with glasses, in a thirteen-photograph array, and both witnesses relied on the defendant's glasses in identifying him as the suspect; and (2) the subsequent lineup and courtroom identifications should have been suppressed because the Commonwealth failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the subsequent identifications were based on a source independent of the suggestive array. We conclude that, based on the judge's findings, there must be a new trial.

1. Suggestiveness of the photographic array. "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.' " Thornley I, supra at 364, 509 N.E.2d 908, quoting Simmons, supra 390 U.S. at 384, 88 S.Ct. at 971. A motion to suppress identification is governed by a two-part analysis as set forth in Botelho, supra 369 Mass. at 866-868, 343 N.E.2d 876. ² The burden rests initially on the defendant to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that considering the totality of the circumstances attending it, ³ the identification was so impermissibly or unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable misidentification as to deprive the defendant of his due process rights. Botelho, supra at 366-368, 343 N.E.2d 876. Simmons, supra 390 U.S. at 384, 88 S.Ct. at 971. If the defendant makes this showing, then there may be a "per se" exclusion of that identification and the prosecution may not offer the identification in evidence. Botelho, supra 369 Mass. at 366, 343 N.E.2d 876. Cf. Commonwealth v. Melvin, 399 Mass. 201, 207 n. 10, 503 N.E.2d 649 (1987); Commonwealth v. Mobley, 369 Mass. 892, 894-895, 344 N.E.2d 181 (1976).

If the defendant sustains his burden, then, in order to introduce any subsequent identifications at trial, the Commonwealth must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the later identifications were not the product of the suggestive identification and were based on a source independent of the initial suggestive identification. Botelho, supra 369 Mass. at 866-868, 343 N.E.2d 876.

In addition to his finding that "the eyeglasses of the defendant had become a major issue in this case," the judge also found that "the identifying witnesses did not spend much time in looking at photographs, but immediately picked out [the defendant's] photograph." ⁴ The findings that (1) the defendant's picture was the only one in the array with glasses; (2) the glasses were a "major issue"; and (3) the witnesses relied on the glasses in selecting the defendant's picture, warrant the conclusion that the witnesses identified the defendant because the defendant's photograph showed him wearing glasses. ⁵

"[W]e disapprove of an array of photographs which distinguishes one suspect from all the others on the basis of some physical characteristic." Commonwealth v. Melvin, 399 Mass. 201, 207 n. 10, 503 N.E.2d 649 (1987). Commonwealth v. Clark, 378 Mass. 392, 400, 393 N.E.2d 296 (1979), quoting United States v. Magnotti, 454 F.2d 1140, 1142 (2d Cir.1972) (photograph in an array may not "single out any distinguishing personal characteristics of defendant not possessed by the men in the other photographs"). Cf. Simmons, supra 390 U.S. at 383, 88 S.Ct. at 971 (even the best arrays involve "some danger [of] an incorrect identification" and this danger is increased where "the photograph of a single ... individual ... is in some way emphasized"). Nevertheless, identifications based on a suggestive array where only one subject is pictured with a distinctive feature are admissible if "it is clear that the [witness] did not select the photograph on that basis" (emphasis added). Commonwealth v. Melvin, supra 399 Mass. at 207 n. 10, 503 N.E.2d 649. ⁶ A witness's unequivocal testimony that he was not relying on a distinctive feature will considerably neutralize any suggestiveness in a photographic array. Commonwealth v. Mobley, 369 Mass. 892, 896, 344 N.E.2d 181 (1976). The instant case is distinguishable from Mobley and Melvin in that here, both witnesses unequivocally and explicitly said that the glasses were the significant factor that they relied on in their selection of the defendant's photograph. Thus, the suggestiveness in this case was not "considerably neutralized." Mobley, supra 369 Mass. at 896, 344 N.E.2d 181. Because the witnesses selected the defendant's photograph on the basis of the glasses, we conclude that the array was "impermissibly" suggestive.

After a defendant proves that an initial identification was impermissibly suggestive, the Commonwealth bears the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that any subsequent identifications are based on an independent source. Botelho, supra 369 Mass. at 867-868, 343 N.E.2d 876. As we noted in Thornley I, supra 400 Mass. at 364, 509 N.E.2d 908, application of this test requires consideration of the five factors set forth in Simmons and Wade. The judge found that the "identification of the defendant was primarily an eyeball identification and was not wholly dependent on [the] photographic array" (emphasis added). A finding that the lineup and courtroom identifications were "not wholly dependent" on the suggestive array falls short of a determination that the identifications have an independent source. The judge's original finding that "the identifying witnesses were relying 'upon their view of the defendant on the night of the shooting' " does not aid the Commonwealth because the judge did not conclude that the witnesses were relying solely on their view of the defendant during the crime without regard to the photographic array. Indeed, this judge's determination that the identification of the defendant was not wholly dependent on the photographic array suggests otherwise. Because the Commonwealth did not convince the judge that the lineup and courtroom identification were based on a source independent of the suggestive photographic identification, it was error to admit that testimony.

2. Harmless error. We next consider whether the constitutional errors in the present case were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). Commonwealth v. Kelleher, 395 Mass. 821, 827, 482 N.E.2d 804 (1985). Commonwealth v. Garcia, 379 Mass. 422, 441, 399 N.E.2d 460 (1980). Whether an error is harmless depends on a host of factors, Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986), including whether the "erroneously admitted evidence was 'merely cumulative' of evidence properly before the jury," Commonwealth v. Sinnott, 399 Mass. 863, 872 n. 8, 507 N.E.2d 699 (1987). The essential question is whether the error had or might have had an effect on the jury and whether the error contributed to or might have contributed to the verdict. See Commonwealth v. Marini, 375 Mass. 510, 520, 378 N.E.2d 51 (1978).

Applying the foregoing standard, we have no doubt that the errors here were not harmless to the defendant. The sole issue at trial was whether the defendant was mistakenly identified as the assailant. "The reasonable doubt standard is most crucial in cases where central facts (such as identity ...) are at issue, and credibility plays a key role." Commonwealth v. Garcia, supr...