Commonwealth v. Morales-Alvarez, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-020-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT. 1677CR0564, 0565, 0566 ____________________ COMMONWEALTH v. EDGAR MORALES-ALVAREZ, ELISAMUEL FERNANDEZ-PAGAN, and ANGEL ROJAS ____________________ FINDINGS OF FACT, RULINGS OF LAW, AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATIONS The Defendants have all been charged with participating in an armed robbery of a convenience store, assault with a dangerous weapon (because one of them allegedly fired a shot at two people as Defendants fled), and receiving a stolen motor vehicle. Three witnesses (the convenience store owner, the owner of a neighboring pizza shop, and one of the neighbors who was shot at) identified some or all of the defendants as the perpetrators after police had them showup and view three suspects standing next to a marked police cruiser, with their hands behind their backs, and flanked by two uniformed police officers. The fourth witness could not identify any of the suspects. Defendants move to suppress these three identifications. The Court concludes that it must suppress the identifications made by the convenience store owner because they were brought about by an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure and also because the limited probative value of his identifications is substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice of admitting identifications tainted by highly suggestive circumstances. It further concludes that it must also suppress the identifications by the neighbor; although the identification procedure used with this witness was not unnecessarily suggestive in a constitutional sense, the probative value of his identifications is also substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice of admitting identifications tainted by suggestive circumstances. However, the Court concludes that the separate identification by the pizza shop owner is admissible. 1. Findings of Fact. The Court heard testimony by Lt. Maurice Aguiler and Det. Frank Daly of the Lawrence Police Department. The Court finds that both – 2 – witnesses were credible and credits all of their testimony. It makes the following findings based on this evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. 1.1. The Robbery and Witness Statements. On October 17, 2016, shortly before 11:45 a.m., the Lawrence police department received a 911 call reporting an armed robbery at the D&C Convenience store. At that time Aguiler was a police sergeant and was overseeing the day shift. Daly was working his very first shift as a police detective. They responded together to the call, driving to D&C Convenience in an unmarked Ford Crown Victoria sedan. Other police officers also responded. David Ashness, the owner of D&C Convenience, was the robbery victim. The Court infers and therefore finds that Ashness was the person who had made the 911 call. Det. Daly took his statement. Ashness was bleeding from the head when Daly arrived. Ashness told Daly that he had […]

Read more...