12 N.E.3d 982
Mass. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant Santiago Navarro was convicted by a jury of multiple counts of armed robbery (masked), home invasion, and kidnapping for a June 13–14, 2010 poker-game robbery. Shorty (Christopher Maldonado) was an accomplice who later identified the defendant as the gunman.
- During the robbery two masked men entered, one (allegedly Navarro) held a gun; players were zip-tied, cash and phones taken; Shorty’s tie was loose and he later disclosed his role while taking the gun.
- Two players followed the getaway car and reported the blue Mitsubishi Galant license 7777-MF; that plate registered to the defendant’s girlfriend, and the defendant and girlfriend were found the next day in the same car and visited police together.
- Photo arrays: Shorty was identified in an array by most players; a later array including Navarro produced in-court identifications by two players (Leger and Marelis) who rated their certainty 8/10; telephone records showed extensive calls/texts between Shorty, the defendant, and the girlfriend around the robbery timeframe.
- Procedural/triage facts relevant to issues: the judge gave general eyewitness-identification and credibility instructions but did not sua sponte give the five-factor Rodriguez instruction; defense counsel did not request Rodriguez and vigorously cross-examined eyewitnesses; Shorty made an in-court ID and may have participated in a photo array but no photo-array report was produced after a diligent search; defense opened the door to testimony about the defendant allegedly seen with a MAC-11 and sawed-off shotgun at his barbershop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge erred by not giving full Rodriguez five-factor eyewitness-ID instruction sua sponte | Commonwealth: general Pressley-style ID instruction and credibility instructions were adequate; Rodriguez not required absent request | Navarro: judge should have given Rodriguez factors sua sponte to guide jury on eyewitness ID reliability | No error; Pressley instruction and credibility charge were adequate and no request was made for Rodriguez instruction |
| Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not requesting Rodriguez instruction | Commonwealth: counsel’s cross-examination and strategy placed ID issues before jury; omission was tactical and not prejudicial | Navarro: failure to request Rodriguez amounted to ineffective assistance | No ineffective assistance; counsel vigorously attacked ID and omission did not create substantial risk of miscarriage of justice |
| Whether Commonwealth failed to produce a photo-array report (Shorty) | Defendant: prosecution misrepresented that no report exists and failed to produce it | Commonwealth: after diligent search, no such report exists | No reversible error; prosecution represented no report exists and none was produced; judge offered strike instruction if report existed |
| Whether prosecutor’s use of defendant’s nickname and Shorty’s testimony about prior-seen firearms were improper | Navarro: nickname use and testimony about MAC-11 and sawed-off shotgun prejudiced jury; prior-bad-acts evidence admission improper | Commonwealth: nickname was identity-related and permissible; testimony about guns was opened by defense’s own opening statement and was admissible rebuttal | No reversible error; nickname admissible for ID; barbershop-guns testimony opened by defense and permissible rebuttal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 378 Mass. 296 (1979) (original formulation of eyewitness identification factors)
- Commonwealth v. Pressley, 390 Mass. 617 (1983) (approved instruction regarding honest but mistaken identification)
- Commonwealth v. Pires, 453 Mass. 66 (2009) (Pressley instruction relationship to Rodriguez)
- Commonwealth v. Caparrotta, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 473 (1993) (Rodriguez instruction required when requested)
- Commonwealth v. Franklin, 465 Mass. 895 (2013) (judge should provide eyewitness-ID guidance when requested)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 423 Mass. 99 (1996) (need for specific eyewitness-ID instructions on request)
- Commonwealth v. Willard, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 650 (2002) (assessing counsel’s attack on identifications)
- Commonwealth v. Dyer, 460 Mass. 728 (2011) (use of defendant nicknames where relevant to ID)
- Commonwealth v. Martinez, 458 Mass. 684 (2010) (nickname mention permissible for ID)
- Commonwealth v. Whitman, 453 Mass. 331 (2009) (rebuttal evidence admissible to respond to defense assertions)
- Commonwealth v. Anestal, 463 Mass. 655 (2012) (prior-bad-act evidence admissible to rebut defendant’s contentions)
- Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 (2014) (new prospective rules on in-court showups and pretrial IDs)
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 470 Mass. 255 (2014) (same line as Crayton on ID procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Howell, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 42 (2000) (procedural preservation and related issues)
- Commonwealth v. Curtis, 417 Mass. 619 (1994) (standard for ineffective assistance requiring substantial risk of miscarriage of justice)