Commonwealth v. Bresilla
23 N.E.3d 75
Mass.2015Background
- In March 2006, a man was fatally shot outside a Cambridge nightclub. Within minutes police found Elysee Bresilla nearby dressed like witnesses described the shooter. Bresilla was later indicted for first‑degree murder and a firearm offense.
- Multiple identifications tied Bresilla to the shooting: an on‑the‑spot showup by witness Daniel Jacobs, photographic array IDs by witnesses who knew Bresilla, and several witnesses who identified a brown leather jacket found along the shooter’s flight path.
- Bresilla’s hands tested positive for gunshot primer residue; DNA testing linked the jacket to him; ammunition from the scene was consistent with a Luger semiautomatic pistol. The gun itself was never recovered.
- Pretrial suppression hearings challenged the showup, photographic arrays, and jacket identifications; the judge denied suppression, though one officer’s improper contact with a sequestered witness led to limited preclusion of that witness’s ID testimony.
- At trial the Commonwealth elicited jacket ID testimony after showing witnesses a jacket photograph during witness preparation; defense later raised Brady and suggestiveness concerns and revealed alterations to some identification forms; the judge allowed thorough cross‑examination and denied suppressive remedies.
- The jury convicted Bresilla of first‑degree murder (premeditation) and the firearm offense; the trial judge denied a new‑trial motion, and the SJC affirmed the convictions under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Bresilla's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of jacket identifications (pretrial parking‑lot IDs and prosecutor’s showing of jacket photo in prep) | Jacket IDs were made contemporaneously (parking lot) or were proper trial preparation; not unduly suggestive; disclosure delay not prejudicial | Showing a single jacket photo was unduly suggestive; late disclosure violated Brady and prejudiced defense | Admission proper; no fundamental unfairness; any late disclosure was not material or prejudicial and not in bad faith |
| Photographic arrays identifying defendant | Arrays used blind presenters and advisements; identifications admissible | Arrays were suggestive, forms were later altered, and protocol lapses undermined reliability | Arrays admissible; protocol lapses explored at trial; remedies (cross‑examination) sufficed; no due‑process violation |
| Showup identification of defendant by Jacobs | Exigent circumstances (homicide, ongoing danger) justified prompt one‑on‑one showup with advisements | Showup was unnecessarily suggestive; Jacobs unreliable | Showup valid given exigency and procedure; judge properly recorded advisements; issue for jury credibility assessment |
| Prosecutor closing and jury instructions (including Bowden style and identification instruction) | Prosecutor argued reasonable inferences and rebutted defense attacks on police; existing instructions on ID sufficed | Prosecutor improperly speculated and shifted burden; judge should have given specific ID/ Bowden instructions | No prejudicial error: remarks were permissible in context; Bowden instruction discretionary; omission of Franklin‑style ID instruction not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Simmons, 383 Mass. 46 (Mass. 1981) (out‑of‑court identifications of property may violate due process only in extreme cases of suggestiveness)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Franklin, 465 Mass. 895 (Mass. 2013) (approved identification instruction should be amended when eyewitnesses give only physical descriptions of perpetrator or clothing)
- Commonwealth v. Silva‑Santiago, 453 Mass. 782 (Mass. 2009) (use of blind presenter relates to weight of ID evidence rather than automatic exclusion)
- Commonwealth v. LeFave, 407 Mass. 927 (Mass. 1990) (prosecutor may respond in rebuttal to defense closing argument)