In April 2017 Feleisha Thompson had a cookout at her home in Springfield. The party involved multiple people and lasted from noon to midnight.
One of the guests, Jose Fargas, got drunk and began arguing with an unidentified man who was speaking to Fargas’s girlfriend.
Around midnight, Fargas went to sleep at Feleisha’s house and the party-goers began to leave. One of the attendees was picked up by a man wearing blue jeans, a white shirt, and a baseball hat.
This man left briefly and then returned to the house. He encountered Feleisha in the driveway and demanded to know where he could find Fargas.
Before getting an answer, the man drew a gun and began firing into the house. Several people were inside–including Feleisha’s six-year-old son–but no one was struck by the gunfire.
Police interviewed Feleisha. She told investigators that she recognized the shooter from the party but did not know his name. She was asked to view an array of eight photos. From the array she identified Jose Rodriguez and told police that she was “ninety percent sure” that he was the shooter.
At trial the judge permitted Feleisha to perform an in-court identification of Rodriguez.
Rodriguez was convicted of assault by means of a dangerous weapon with intent to murder and numerous other related crimes.
He appealed the verdict arguing, in part, that the trial judge should not have allowed the in-court identification.
The Appeals Court agreed with Rodriguez and vacated the convictions.
According to the applicable case law,
If an eyewitness made something less than an unequivocal positive identification of the defendant during an out-of-court identification procedure, that witness may not make an in-court identification
without ‘good reason. See Commonwealth v. Yang, 98 Mass. App. Ct. 446, 448 (2020)
In Rodriguez’s case, Feleisha was only “ninety percent sure” that he was the alleged shooter. Therefore, no “unequivocal positive identification” was made. Additionally, the judge gave no reason whatsoever for allowing the in-court identification at trial.
The Appeals Court writes,
[E]ven where a pretrial identification was less than unequivocal, an in-court identification can be allowed for “good reason.” The problem is that the trial judge did not find any such good reason; indeed, nothing indicates that he ever considered whether good reason existed. Nor is any such good reason obvious on the current record.
Accordingly the verdict was vacated and the matter will likely be retried in Hampden County Superior Court.
To read the full opinion, click the document below.