## Facts

- Robert W. LaMonica was fatally shot in a Braintree, Massachusetts apartment parking lot shortly after midnight on May 31, 1980, after four shots were fired; two bullets struck him, and he died at the scene.
- About two weeks earlier, a South Boston fight occurred between Thomas Barrett (associated with Frederick Weichell) and Francis Shea (LaMonica’s friend).
- During the earlier altercation, Weichell threatened Shea, including statements implying Shea could be killed and not found; LaMonica later expressed hostility and threats toward Weichell and Barrett.
- John Foley was in a nearby park on the night of the shooting, had consumed several beers, heard gunshots, and saw a man run from the parking lot to a waiting car; Foley testified he had a brief full-face view under a streetlight.
- Foley described the runner’s physical features (including dark curly hair, bushy eyebrows, sideburns, and a slightly crooked/broken nose) and clothing.
- With a police officer’s assistance, Foley used an Identikit (overlay composite tool) to create a composite drawing by selecting and modifying facial features until Foley approved the likeness.
- Foley later identified Weichell from a photographic array, again during a police ride near the scene, and at trial.
- A jury convicted Weichell of first-degree murder; he received a mandatory life sentence and sought review raising multiple evidentiary claims and requesting extraordinary relief.

## Issues

1. Whether an Identikit composite drawing created by a witness with police assistance is admissible as substantive evidence of identification when not shown to be produced under suggestive circumstances.
2. Whether statements showing the victim’s hostile state of mind toward the defendant, and the defendant’s prior threats, were admissible to prove motive.
3. Whether the trial judge properly excluded defense evidence that other persons had a motive to commit the murder.
4. Whether admitting identification-related photographs, including a profile “mug shot” and an enlarged arrest photograph, was unduly prejudicial or otherwise erroneous.
5. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and whether extraordinary relief was warranted to reduce the degree of guilt or order a new trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the conviction and declined to grant extraordinary relief.
- The court held the Identikit composite was admissible as substantive identification evidence where the procedure was not shown to be suggestive.
- The court upheld admission of motive evidence, including the defendant’s threats and evidence of the victim’s hostility toward the defendant where circumstances supported an inference the defendant knew of it.
- The court found no error in excluding third-party-motive evidence as weak and remote.
- The court upheld admission of the profile mug shot used in the photographic identification and the enlarged arrest photograph upon an adequate foundation; it also upheld exclusion of defense night photographs of the scene due to lack of foundation regarding lighting conditions.
- A dissent argued composites’ reliability was not established and that the process risks police influence, particularly when the witness’s original observation is brief.

## Legal Principles

- A composite sketch created by a witness using an Identikit with police assistance may be admitted as substantive identification evidence if the process is not shown to be suggestive.
- Substantive use of out-of-court identification evidence is permissible when the witness directed and approved the identification depiction and can be cross-examined at trial.
- Evidence of a victim’s state of mind may be admissible to show the defendant’s motive when the jury may reasonably infer the defendant knew of the victim’s attitude or threats.
- Trial judges have discretion to exclude third-party-culpability evidence that is speculative, weak in probative value, or remote in time, particularly when it does not meaningfully connect a third party to the crime.
- Identification photographs, including “mug shot” formats, may be admitted when their probative value on contested identification is substantial and a proper foundation is laid; demonstrative photographs may be excluded absent proof they fairly and accurately depict relevant conditions.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a first-degree murder conviction, holding that an Identikit composite may be used as substantive identification evidence absent suggestive procedures, and that the trial judge acted within discretion in admitting motive and identification-related evidence while excluding speculative third-party-motive and inadequately founded scene photographs.


Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 453 N.E.2d 1038 (1983)