Commonwealth v. Weichell
390 Mass. 62 (1983), 453 N.E.2d 1038 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A composite sketch created by an eyewitness with police assistance is not inadmissible hearsay and may be admitted as substantive evidence of identification, provided the process of its creation was not impermissibly suggestive.
Facts:
- On May 18, 1980, Thomas Barrett and the defendant, Frederick Weichell, confronted Francis Shea, resulting in a fight.
- The victim, Robert LaMonica, who was a friend of Shea, arrived at the scene and helped Shea.
- In the days following the fight, LaMonica made several threats against Barrett and Weichell, stating he and his friends were "going to kill him."
- Subsequently, Weichell was seen in a heated argument with LaMonica, pointing his finger in LaMonica's face.
- Shortly after midnight on May 31, 1980, LaMonica was shot four times and killed in the parking lot of his Braintree apartment building.
- John Foley, who was in a nearby park, witnessed a man run from the parking lot, getting a brief, one-second, full-face view of him as he passed under a street light.
- Later that morning, Foley worked with a police detective to create a composite drawing of the man he saw.
Procedural Posture:
- Frederick Weichell was tried for murder in the first degree in a Massachusetts trial court.
- The trial judge denied Weichell's motions in limine to exclude evidence of motive and a profile 'mugshot' photograph.
- The trial judge granted the Commonwealth's motion in limine to exclude evidence that third parties had a motive to commit the crime.
- Over Weichell's objection, the trial judge admitted a composite drawing of the suspect into evidence for corroborative purposes.
- On August 20, 1981, a jury convicted Weichell of murder in the first degree, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Weichell filed a direct appeal of his conviction to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a composite sketch, created by an eyewitness with the assistance of a police officer using an Identikit, admissible as substantive evidence of identification at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Lynch, J.
Yes. An 'Identikit' composite sketch not shown to be prepared under suggestive circumstances is admissible as substantive evidence of identification. The court reasons that out-of-court identifications are often more reliable than in-court ones because they occur closer to the time of the offense and under less suggestive circumstances. Since a witness's verbal statements describing a perpetrator would be admissible as an out-of-court identification, the composite sketch—which is merely a graphic representation of those statements—is also admissible as substantive evidence, not just for corroboration, provided the creation process was not impermissibly suggestive.
Dissenting - Liacos, J.
No. A composite sketch should not be admitted as substantive evidence of identification without a foundational showing of its reliability. The dissent argues that the reliability of Identikit composites has not been scientifically established, and their 'aura of special reliability' could unduly prejudice and confuse a jury. Unlike photographic arrays, the process of constructing a composite from individual features is highly susceptible to error and suggestion, especially when the witness's observation was brief and under poor conditions, as it was here. Therefore, its admission constituted prejudicial error.
Dissenting - O’Connor, J.
No. For the reasons expressed in the dissent in Commonwealth v. Blaney, the admission of the composite was prejudicial error. The conviction should be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in Massachusetts evidence law, effectively overturning the precedent from Commonwealth v. McKenna which held composite sketches to be inadmissible hearsay. By treating composite sketches as substantive evidence, the court aligns Massachusetts law more closely with the Federal Rules of Evidence and a modern trend recognizing the probative value of out-of-court identifications. This ruling makes it easier for prosecutors to use composite sketches as direct proof of a defendant's identity, especially in cases with weak or no in-court identifications, while placing the burden on the defense to show the creation process was impermissibly suggestive.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Weichell