# Commonwealth v. Weichell

> Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · September 2, 1983 · 390 Mass. 62

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9721780

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth vs. Frederick Weichell
- **Court:** Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- **Decided:** September 2, 1983
- **Citations:** 390 Mass. 62; 453 N.E.2d 1038; 1983 Mass. LEXIS 1634
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by O'Connor
- **Judges:** Hennessey, Wilkins, Liacos, Abrams, Nolan, Lynch, O'Connor
- **Cited by:** 68 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/9721780

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9721780. Public record. Not legal advice.