noting that one rationale for admitting a composite drawing of the suspect made by a witness before the trial is that such evidence is not a “statement” for purposes of the hearsay rule
How later courts described this case
- noting that one rationale for admitting a composite drawing of the suspect made by a witness before the trial is that such evidence is not a “statement” for purposes of the hearsay rule
- “Under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Proposed Massachusetts Rules of Evidence [1980], a statement of prior identification is not hearsay if made by a witness who testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning it. Fed.R.Evid. 801[d][l][C], Proposed Mass.R.Evid. 901 [d] [1][C] [1980]. Paragraph C is consistent with Massachusetts law giving substantive effect to prior identification.”
- physical description and resulting composite drawing
- adopting Proposed Mass. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(c)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
O’Connor, J.
(dissenting). I do not agree with the court’s holding that the composite was properly admitted in evidence. My views on the admissibility of composites in criminal trials were fully expressed in my dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Blaney, 387 Mass. 628, 640-643 (1982). Because I believe that admission of the composite was prejudicial error, I would reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial.