Commonwealth v. Johnson
45 N.E.3d 83, 473 Mass. 594 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under common law principles of fairness, a judge has the discretion to exclude an eyewitness identification, even when there is no police misconduct, if the judge determines that the identification was made under circumstances so suggestive that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Facts:
- On September 21, 2012, Adebayo Talabi returned to his apartment to find an armed intruder inside.
- Talabi struggled with the intruder, during which a firearm discharged without injuring anyone, and the intruder fled.
- Talabi provided a description of the intruder to police as a light-skinned black male wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt.
- On September 27, 2012, Talabi spoke with his cousin, TJ. Hendricks, who suggested the intruder could be the defendant, the boyfriend of their mutual cousin.
- Hendricks stated he suspected the defendant had also broken into his own home a day earlier, based on surveillance footage.
- Hendricks sent Talabi a photograph of the defendant taken at a cookout.
- After viewing the cookout photograph and speaking with Hendricks, Talabi identified the defendant as the intruder from his apartment.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was indicted in the trial court on seven charges, including armed assault in a dwelling.
- The defendant filed a motion in the trial court to suppress all out-of-court and in-court identifications made by the victim, Adebayo Talabi.
- Following an evidentiary hearing, the motion judge allowed the defendant's motion to suppress.
- The Commonwealth filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.
- A single justice of the appellate court granted the Commonwealth's application for an interlocutory appeal.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case from the intermediate appellate court on its own motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under common law principles of fairness, does a judge abuse their discretion by suppressing an eyewitness identification that was made under suggestive circumstances not created by the police, when the judge determines its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice?
Opinions:
Majority - Gants, C.J.
No. A judge does not abuse their discretion by suppressing an eyewitness identification made under suggestive circumstances not caused by police if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court affirmed the suppression, distinguishing between identifications made suggestive by police action, which are subject to a per se exclusion rule under art. 12 to deter misconduct, and those made suggestive by private actors. For the latter, admissibility is governed by the common law principles of fairness articulated in Commonwealth v. Jones, which function as an application of the evidentiary rule balancing probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice. The danger of unfair prejudice arises because suggestive circumstances can artificially inflate a witness's confidence and alter their memory, which juries struggle to evaluate. Here, the suggestion from Talabi's trusted cousin that the intruder was a specific, known individual, combined with the presentation of a single photograph, created a substantial risk of misidentification. The court found that the probative value of the identification was low because its 'independent source' was weak: Talabi's encounter was brief, his description was meager and potentially inaccurate, and details of the observation were lacking. Given the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review for such evidentiary rulings, the motion judge's decision to suppress the identification was within the range of reasonable alternatives.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and strengthens the framework for excluding suggestive eyewitness identifications that do not result from police misconduct. By explicitly linking the Commonwealth v. Jones 'common law principles of fairness' standard to the traditional evidentiary balancing test (Mass. G. Evid. § 403), the court provides a clearer analytical tool for trial judges. The ruling establishes that the threshold for 'suggestiveness' required to trigger this balancing test is lower than the high bar for constitutional due process violations involving police. Furthermore, the court's holding that an in-court identification is automatically inadmissible if a prior out-of-court identification is suppressed for unreliability under Jones creates a significant protection for defendants, preventing the prosecution from using the inherently suggestive nature of a courtroom setting to salvage an unreliable identification.
