Commonwealth v. Cong Duc Le
444 Mass. 431 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-court statement of identification is admissible as substantive evidence, even if the witness denies making the identification at trial, provided the witness testifies at the trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement.
Facts:
- On April 29, 2001, Khanh Luong and James Nguyen were leaving a nightclub when they were confronted by Cong Due Le and Tung Ouoc Huynh.
- Le complained of a prior insult, and the defendants ordered Luong and Nguyen to their knees.
- When they refused, Huynh punched Luong and Le struck Nguyen, causing Luong to fall to the ground where he was kicked and punched by multiple people.
- A few days later, Detective Mario Módica interviewed Nguyen at the police station.
- According to Detective Módica, Nguyen viewed a photo array and a computerized display, identifying Huynh as the person who attacked Luong and Le as the person who had struck him (Nguyen).
- At trial, Nguyen acknowledged selecting the defendants' photographs but testified he only identified them as people he had seen outside the club that night, not as the assailants.
Procedural Posture:
- Cong Due Le and Tung Ouoc Huynh were charged with assault and battery and tried in a state trial court.
- At trial, the judge permitted Detective Módica's testimony about James Nguyen's prior identification to be used as substantive evidence over the defendants' objections.
- A jury convicted Le and Huynh of assault and battery.
- The defendants appealed their convictions to the Massachusetts Appeals Court (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appeals Court reversed the convictions, holding that the substantive use of the prior identification evidence violated the rule established in Commonwealth v. Daye.
- The Commonwealth then applied for, and was granted, further appellate review by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (the state's highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does allowing a third party's testimony about a witness's prior out-of-court identification to be used as substantive evidence violate evidentiary rules or the defendant's right of confrontation when the witness denies having made the identification at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Sosman, J.
No. A prior statement of identification can be admitted as substantive evidence even if the identifying witness denies making that identification at trial, as long as the witness is present and subject to cross-examination. This decision overrules the contrary holding in Commonwealth v. Daye. The court adopts the modern interpretation of rules identical to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(C), which was upheld against a Confrontation Clause challenge in United States v. Owens. The Owens court held that the Confrontation Clause guarantees only an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not a cross-examination that is effective in whatever way the defense might wish. If the witness is on the stand, under oath, and responds to questions, the defendant's right to confrontation is satisfied, even if the witness denies or cannot recall the prior statement. The jury is capable of weighing the conflicting testimony of the witness and the person who observed the prior identification to determine credibility.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters Massachusetts evidence law by aligning it with the federal rules and the majority of state jurisdictions regarding prior inconsistent statements of identification. It overrules the precedent set in Commonwealth v. Daye, which limited the use of such statements to impeachment when denied by the witness. The ruling strengthens the prosecution's ability to secure convictions when witnesses recant their initial identifications, which may occur due to intimidation or fear. It places trust in the jury's ability to resolve credibility disputes between a recanting witness and an officer testifying about the prior identification.
