# Commonwealth v. Smith

> Massachusetts Appeals Court · March 14, 1979 · 7 Mass. App. Ct. 879

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6456345

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth v. Kevin Smith
- **Court:** Massachusetts Appeals Court
- **Decided:** March 14, 1979
- **Citations:** 7 Mass. App. Ct. 879; 386 N.E.2d 803; 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1268
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6456345

## Opinion text

Brown, J.
(dissenting). In my view, this is an easy case. There is no issue here of misidentification. The only question is whether the defendant participated in the destruction of the fence. 1. The defendant admits that he was present at the alleged incident. The victim identified the defendant "as being one of the eight youths who participated in the alleged destruction.” That much is quite clear from the rather inartfully drawn bill of exceptions. Thus, contrary to the defendant’s contention, there is no issue of misidentification to which the question "as to what description of the defendant was written down [earlier in the morning] at 1:05 a.m.” by the victim can be said to be relevant. Compare Commonwealth v. Bettencourt, 361 Mass. 515, 519 (1972). 2. Moreover, the bill of exceptions does not show what purpose the defendant sought to accomplish or how he would have been aided by the answer. Nor does the defendant’s bill of exceptions show prejudice in the exclusion of this isolated question. See Commonwealth v. McGrath, 358 Mass. 814, 815 (1971). See generally Commonwealth v. Barras, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 43, 46-47 (1975).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6456345. Public record. Not legal advice.