Commonwealth v. Smith

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Smith

386 N.E.2d 803, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 879, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1268

DecidedMarch 14, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 386 N.E.2d 803 (Commonwealth v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Smith, 386 N.E.2d 803, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 879, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1268 (Mass. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

On the state of the evidence disclosed by the substitute bill of exceptions, the inquiry which the defendant was precluded (despite the fact that the Commonwealth had raised no objection) from putting to the complaining wit[880]*880ness on cross-examination related not merely to the credibility of the latter but to the central issue of the correctness of the identification of the defendant as one of the smaller group which committed the crime, an issue which was not obviated by the defendant’s admission that he was part of the larger group in the vicinity. In these circumstances it was error to foreclose inquiry on cross-examination into the content of the written description which led to the apprehension of the defendant and the subsequent in-person identification of him by the complaining witness. See Commonwealth v. Franklin, 366 Mass. 284, 290 (1974), and cases cited; Commonwealth v. Graziano, 368 Mass. 325, 329-330 (1975); Commonwealth v. Bohannon, 376 Mass. 90, 94 (1978); Commonwealth v. Dominico, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 693, 712 (1974), and cases cited.

Joseph M. Flak for the defendant. Robert J. Schilling, Special Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Exceptions sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

On the state of the evidence disclosed by the substitute bill of exceptions, the inquiry which the defendant was precluded (despite the fact that the Commonwealth had raised no objection) from putting to the complaining wit[880]*880ness on cross-examination related not merely to the credibility of the latter but to the central issue of the correctness of the identification of the defendant as one of the smaller group which committed the crime, an issue which was not obviated by the defendant’s admission that he was part of the larger group in the vicinity. In these circumstances it was error to foreclose inquiry on cross-examination into the content of the written description which led to the apprehension of the defendant and the subsequent in-person identification of him by the complaining witness. See Commonwealth v. Franklin, 366 Mass. 284, 290 (1974), and cases cited; Commonwealth v. Graziano, 368 Mass. 325, 329-330 (1975); Commonwealth v. Bohannon, 376 Mass. 90, 94 (1978); Commonwealth v. Dominico, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 693, 712 (1974), and cases cited.

Joseph M. Flak for the defendant. Robert J. Schilling, Special Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 N.E.2d 803, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 879, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-smith-massappct-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack