Com. v. Weichell

Decision Date02 September 1983
Citation390 Mass. 62,453 N.E.2d 1038
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. Frederick WEICHELL.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Anthony M. Cardinale, Boston, for defendant.

Charles J. Hely, Asst. Dist. Atty. (Sydney Hanlon, Asst. Dist. Atty., with him), for the Commonwealth.

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

LYNCH, Justice.

The defendant was convicted by a jury on August 20, 1981, of murder in the first degree for the fatal shooting of Robert W. LaMonica. The shooting occurred shortly after midnight on May 31, 1980, outside LaMonica's Braintree apartment. The defendant was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment and now appeals his conviction. G.L. c. 278, § 33E.

Weichell claims that the trial judge erred in (1) denying his motions in limine to exclude certain evidence relating to motive; (2) granting the Commonwealth's motion in limine to exclude evidence which tended to show that third parties had a motive to commit the crime; (3) refusing to exclude a "mugshot" photograph of the defendant's profile; (4) permitting the Commonwealth to introduce in evidence a composite drawing; (5) allowing the Commonwealth to introduce in evidence an enlarged copy of a photograph of the defendant taken by the Braintree police at the time of his arrest; and (6) excluding photographs of the scene of the crime and the testimony of the photographer who took them. Weichell contends also that his conviction was against the weight of the evidence. He urges us to exercise our power under G.L. c. 278, § 33E, to order a new trial or otherwise to mitigate punishment. There was no error, and we find no reason to exercise our power under G.L. c. 278, § 33E.

1. Evidence. We summarize the evidence presented to the jury.

a. Motive. On May 18, 1980, Thomas Barrett and the defendant approached Francis Shea on a street in South Boston. Barrett and Shea had words and began to fight. They wrestled for several minutes until Barrett locked Shea in a "choke hold." Shea "blacked out" but regained consciousness soon after. The fight attracted much attention, and several of Shea's friends, including the victim, arrived. He helped Shea to his feet.

A heated argument developed between Shea's friends on one side and Barrett and the defendant on the other side. Shea told Barrett that he would kill him. The defendant then stepped up to Shea and told him that if Shea killed Barrett, he himself would kill Shea and that "they'll never find [your] body." With these words, the defendant and Barrett turned away and left. Shea, LaMonica, and other friends of Shea, Dennis King, and Chuckie Carr, retired to the house of Shea's brother. Shea was later treated at a hospital for lacerations on the right side of his head.

During the remainder of that day, LaMonica uttered to others several threats relating to Barrett and the defendant. He told Shea that he wanted to retaliate and said, "They picked on the wrong people this time. We are going to kill him." Dennis King heard him say that they should "go after them. They messed with the wrong people." LaMonica began work late in the afternoon. He returned to his apartment an hour and one-half after finishing work; he was "upset" and he had been drinking. He told his paramour, Maureen A. Connolly, that "[m]e and my friends, we're going to get him, and we're going to kill him." Connolly testified that LaMonica was referring to both Barrett and the defendant.

The fight appears to have stirred up the friends of Shea and Barrett. On May 20, 1980, Barrett, the defendant, and a third person came to the house of Francis Shea's brother, Richard. As Francis Shea watched them from the roof, the defendant told Dennis King and Richard Shea that he wanted "to know what Frankie wants to do. I have a brother dead, I have a brother in jail. I'm not going to wait. I'm going to act first."

The next day Francis Shea saw the defendant and LaMonica arguing. He did not hear the words uttered, but testified that the defendant was "pointing his finger in Robert LaMonica's face and stepping up and down the sidewalk." A couple of days later, King, the Shea brothers, and Francis's two sons came upon the defendant, Barrett, and a third man. Richard Shea challenged Barrett to a fight. The defendant turned around and replied, "No. Bring it down. We aren't going to let this go."

b. The shooting. LaMonica worked for the Boston Water and Sewer Commission. He worked from 4 p.m. to midnight. He would usually drive straight home from his job to his apartment, customarily arriving there between 12:15 a.m. 12:30 a.m. He would turn off Faxon Street to park his car in a parking lot adjacent to his apartment building. Faxon Park is across from the entrance to the parking lot. 1 LaMonica followed this routine on the morning of May 31, 1980. He parked and got out of his car. Four shots were fired, two of them hitting LaMonica. A bullet entered through his neck and penetrated the brain. A second bullet entered his back and lodged in his right rib cage. LaMonica died in the parking lot.

c. Identification. Shortly before midnight on May 30, 1980, John Foley, Jean Castonquay, Frederick Laracy, and Lisa Krause went to Faxon Park, after attending a drive-in movie together. Foley testified the group had been drinking and that he had consumed four or five beers during the movies. At 12:15 a.m., Foley was walking away from a wooded area of the park. He heard four "bangs" and saw a man run out of the parking lot and turn up Faxon Street to a waiting car. Krause screamed. The man looked toward the group briefly but continued running. Foley testified that he had a full-face view of the man for approximately one second as the man passed under a street light. Foley and Laracy went across Faxon Street to the parking lot where they found the body of the victim on the ground. The police arrived shortly thereafter.

Foley described to the police the man he saw running as being five feet, nine inches tall, 175 pounds, wearing jeans and a pullover shirt. 2 He said that the man had dark curly hair, bushy eyebrows, and sideburns. He also stated that the man had a slightly crooked nose, "as if it had been broken." At trial, he identified the defendant as the man he saw running that night.

Later that morning, Foley assisted Detective Wilson of the Braintree police department in making a composite drawing. After indicating that he could not draw a face by himself, Foley gave Wilson a general description. With the aid of an Identikit, Wilson and Foley assembled a composite. Foley examined the composite and asked for changes. Wilson then changed elements of the composite and put together a different face. Wilson used a pencil to alter the nose. After Foley altered the hair style, he declared that the composite "looks like him." A photostatic copy of the composite was introduced in evidence at trial.

The next day, Foley was shown an array of nine photographs. He picked the defendant's picture as "a pretty good likeness" of the man. Several months later, he again identified the defendant's photograph out of the same array but which now included one additional photograph.

On June 12, 1980, two State troopers, Foley, and the victim's two brothers drove through the streets of South Boston in a van. The LaMonicas gave directions, but did not speak to Foley. Eventually, Foley picked, out of a group of young men, an individual whom he thought was the man he saw running. The van was driven around the corner and passed the group for a second time. Foley stated, "That's the guy." A State trooper took a photograph of the individual which was introduced in evidence and identified as a photograph of the defendant.

Jean Castonquay also testified that she heard four shots and saw a man running. At trial, she was unable to say whether the defendant was the man she saw. Moments later, she tentatively identified another person sitting in the back of the courtroom as the man. 3 On three occasions Castonquay was shown the same array of photographs as Foley, but was unable to pick out any one photograph. Instead, she picked out two or three photographs each time, always including that of the defendant. Neither Laracy nor Krause made any identification. 4

d. The defendant's case. At trial, the defendant's counsel, through cross-examination, attempted to bring out whatever discrepancies existed in Foley's testimony. He emphasized that Foley had indicated that the man he saw running had thick sideburns and bushy eyebrows. Foley admitted, however, that the defendant's eyebrows were different. It also appears that the defendant did not have any sideburns. Despite some evidence to the contrary, the jury could have concluded that the defendant had curly hair at the time of the murder. The defendant also attempted to show that the lighting in the area was poor 5 and that the identification process was unreliable. The defendant did not testify.

The defendant also sought to establish a defense of alibi. Three witnesses testified on his behalf. One witness's testimony placed the defendant in downtown Boston until midnight. The other witnesses placed the defendant at the Triple O Lounge in South Boston at, or shortly after, the time of the shooting.

In rebuttal, the Commonwealth introduced evidence that the defendant could have left downtown Boston shortly before midnight and driven to LaMonica's apartment by the time of the shooting. A trip to the Triple O Lounge from the victim's apartment would have taken only another fifteen or twenty minutes. The Commonwealth also attacked the credibility of the two witnesses who placed him at the Triple O Lounge. Both were long-time friends of the defendant, and one was engaged to Thomas Barrett's sister. The other witness failed to explain why he never came forward until one week before the trial.

2. Admission of the composite drawing. The composite...

To continue reading

Request your trial
82 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Brea
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • August 6, 2021
    ...Id. at 509, 862 N.E.2d 363. See Commonwealth v. Brooks, 422 Mass. 574, 581, 664 N.E.2d 801 (1996) ; Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 73, 453 N.E.2d 1038 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032, 104 S.Ct. 1298, 79 L.Ed.2d 698 (1984), and cases cited. Conversely, the absence of any evidenc......
  • Com. v. Daye
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 24, 1984
    ...because of the superior probative worth of an identification made closer in time to the events in question. Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 71, 453 N.E.2d 1038 (1983); id. at 87, 453 N.E.2d 1038 (Liacos, J., dissenting). Where, however, the extrajudicial identification is establishe......
  • Com. v. Helfant
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • August 13, 1986
    ...106, 461 N.E.2d 192, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 840, 105 S.Ct. 143, 83 L.Ed.2d 82 (1984) (victim's state of mind); Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 73, 453 N.E.2d 1038 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032, 104 S.Ct. 1298, 79 L.Ed.2d 698 (1984) (motive); Commonwealth v. King, 387 Mass. 464......
  • Com. v. Drew
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1986
    ...Karen back because she knew too much." The evidence was relevant to show motive and therefore admissible. Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 73, 453 N.E.2d 1038 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032, 104 S.Ct. 1298, 79 L.Ed.2d 698 (1984). Commonwealth v. Sperrazza, 379 Mass. 166, 169, 39......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
39 books & journal articles
  • Argumentative Questions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2015 Part I - Testimonial Evidence
    • July 31, 2015
    ...the Federal Rules of Evidence, but Massachusetts’ courts frequently look to the Federal Rules for guidance; see Commonwealth v. Weichell , 390 Mass. 62, 453 N.E.2d 1038 (1983), cert. denied , 104 S. Ct. 1298 (1984). MICHIGAN: The trial courts have discretion to place limits on cross-examina......
  • Questions Calling for a Conclusion
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2015 Part I - Testimonial Evidence
    • July 31, 2015
    ...3-80 Rules of Evidence, but its courts frequently look to the Federal Rules for direction. For example, see Commonwealth v. Weichell , 390 Mass. 62, 453 N.E.2d 1038 (1983), cert. denied , 104 S. Ct. 1298 (1984). MICHIGAN: Michigan’s Rule 701 is identical in content to Fed. R. Evid. 701. Rul......
  • Argumentative Questions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2017 Testimonial evidence
    • July 31, 2017
    ...Massachusetts’ 1-7 Argumentative Questions §1.400 courts frequently look to the Federal Rules for guidance; see Commonwealth v. Weichell , 390 Mass. 62, 453 N.E.2d 1038 (1983), cert. denied , 104 S. Ct. 1298 (1984). MICHIGAN: The trial courts have discretion to place limits on cross-examina......
  • Argumentative Questions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2014 Part I - Testimonial Evidence
    • July 31, 2014
    ...the Federal Rules of Evidence, but Massachusetts’ courts frequently look to the Federal Rules for guidance; see Commonwealth v. Weichell , 390 Mass. 62, 453 N.E.2d 1038 (1983), cert. denied , 104 S. Ct. 1298 (1984). MICHIGAN: The trial courts have discretion to place limits on cross-examina......
  • 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