Commonwealth v. Adams, 458 Mass. 766

Background

Defendant convicted of first-degree murder, armed assault with intent to murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault by means of a dangerous weapon, and firearm offense in two linked incidents on May 14–15, 2007 in Dorchester, Boston.
Two pretrial statements by defendant's younger brother Josiah identified the defendant as at the scene; these were admitted after Josiah testified he did not recognize the defendant.
Josiah had been interviewed three times; second and third interviews were admitted as substantive evidence via prior identification statements.
The defense requested an instruction on defense of another regarding the May 14 incident; trial judge denied it.
Josiah testified at trial that he lied in earlier statements because he was afraid; there were later in-court and video/substantive- evidence presentations of his statements.
G. L. c. 278, § 33E review concluded no reduction of murder conviction or new trial were warranted; judgments affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Josiah’s pretrial identifications were admissible substantive evidence	Commonwealth contends rule 801(d)(1)(C) extends beyond lineup/array identifications	Spina argues identifications not within rule 801(d)(1)(C) because not from procedure	Admissible substantive identifications under 801(d)(1)(C) where declarant knew defendant
Whether the first extrajudicial identification should have been admitted substantively	Commonwealth argues statements should be considered with second/third identifications	Spina argues only second/third should be substantive	Error not reversible; first statement could have been used but limited use did not create miscarriage of justice
Whether the trial court properly refused defense of another instruction for May 14 assault	Commonwealth asserts self-defense elements apply to defense of another	Spina contends instruction required as evidence suggested justified defense of sister	Judge correctly denied defense of another instruction; no reasonable basis for belief of danger to sister
Whether pretrial statements were involuntary due to police pressure	Commonwealth argues no coercion; statements voluntary as testified by Josiah	Spina asserts police pressure affected statements	No error; statements voluntary; risk of pressure not established
Whether the murder conviction should be reduced or retrial ordered under §33E	Commonwealth seeks affirmed conviction	Spina seeks reduction or new trial	No reduction or new trial warranted; judgments affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Cong Duc Le, 444 Mass. 431 (2005) (admissibility of extrajudicial identifications for substantive purposes)
Commonwealth v. Raedy, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 440 (2007) (non-procedural identifications admissible if non-suggestive and timely)
Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62 (1983) (contextualized identification evidence; admissibility considerations)
Commonwealth v. Martin, 369 Mass. 640 (1976) (authority on defense of another and self-defense elements)