9 Mass. App. Ct. 844 | Mass. App. Ct. | 1980
1. The judge did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the in- and out-of-court identifications by the victim and the witness Hill, both because the out-of-court confrontations (the victim and Hill were brought to the scene of the crime ten to fifteen minutes after its occurrence to view the defendant, who had been arrested by the police on the basis of the victim’s description) were of a constitutionally permissible type (compare Commonwealth v. Barnett, 371 Mass. 87, 91-93 [1976], cert denied, 429 U.S. 1049 [1977]; Commonwealth v. Alves, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 572, 581-582 [1978]) and because the judge’s findings, well grounded in the evidence, show that the identifications of each were attended by a high degree of reliability (see Commonwealth v. Gordon, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 230, 235-236 [1978]; compare Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 378 Mass. 296, 305-306 [1979], and cases cited). 2. The judge did not abuse the discretion reposed in him (see Commonwealth v. Bailey, 370 Mass. 388, 397 [1976]) in impliedly ruling that the fresh complaint testimony offered by the Commonwealth was not needlessly and unjustly prejudicial to the de
Judgments affirmed.
