Commonwealth v. Weichell (1983)

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1983 · Evidence

390 Mass. 62 (1983)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceIdentificationMotiveHearsayPhotographseyewitness identificationcomposite sketchIdentikit

Facts

A witness, John Foley, heard shots near the victim's apartment, saw a man run from the parking lot under a street light, later identified the defendant in court, selected his photograph from arrays, and helped police prepare an Identikit composite on the morning of the crime. The Commonwealth also introduced evidence of escalating hostility between the defendant and the victim following an earlier street fight, including threats and confrontations. The defense challenged the reliability of the identification, offered an alibi, sought to admit evidence that others had motive to kill the victim, and objected to various photographs introduced by the Commonwealth.

Issue

Whether the trial judge erred by admitting the Identikit composite as evidence of identification, admitting motive evidence, admitting mugshot and enlarged photographic evidence, and excluding certain defense photographic and third-party motive evidence. Also, whether the evidence was sufficient and warranted relief under G.L. c. 278, § 33E.

Rule

A witness's prior identification is admissible as substantive evidence when the witness testifies and is subject to cross-examination, and an Identikit composite derived from that witness's identification statements is likewise admissible as substantive evidence if it was not prepared under impermissibly suggestive circumstances. Motive evidence is admissible if relevant, including evidence of a victim's state of mind where the jury could reasonably infer the defendant knew of it; third-party culprit evidence may be excluded if too remote or too weak in probative value. Photographs are admissible if fairly and accurately verified, and their admission or exclusion generally lies within the trial judge's discretion.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, a bookstore clerk saw a fleeing burglar for about two seconds under a bright awning light. Within an hour, the clerk went to the police station, selected facial features from a composite kit, asked the detective to narrow the nose and thicken the eyebrows, and said the finished image looked like the man he saw. At trial, the clerk testified and was cross-examined, and there was no evidence the detective knew any suspect or steered the selections.

Is the composite image admissible as substantive evidence of identification?

Explanation. A composite produced from a witness's prior identification statements is admissible as substantive identification evidence when the witness testifies and is subject to cross-examination, so long as the preparation was not impermissibly suggestive. The majority treated the composite as no more than the sum of the witness's identified physical features and rejected a rule confining such evidence to mere corroboration. (Derived from Commonwealth v. Weichell (1983) (1983).)