Case Name: Commonwealth vs. Lewis H. Dickerson
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1977-06-20
Citations: 372 Mass. 783
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth vs. Lewis H. Dickerson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 372
Pages: 783–813

Head Matter:
Commonwealth vs. Lewis H. Dickerson.
Suffolk.
November 1, 1976.
June 20, 1977.
Present: Hennessey, C.J., Quirico, Braucher, Kaplan, Wilkins, Liacos, & Abrams, JJ.
Maurice F. Ford for the defendant.
Robert J. McKenna, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Opinion:
Hennessey, C.J.
The defendant brings this appeal under G. L. c. 278, § 33A-33G, from his convictions on indictments charging murder in the first degree, armed robbery, and unlawfully carrying a handgun on his person. He was sentenced to two concurrent life sentences to be served at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole on the murder and armed robbery convictions and to an additional concurrent sentence of two and one-half to three years on the handgun possession conviction.
The defendant raises the following issues in this appeal: (1) whether, during a voir dire hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress in-court and out-of-court identifications, the judge erred in excluding examination of witnesses with respect to other persons who were in the area in which the defendant was identified; (2) whether the judge erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress identification and to suppress clothing seized in the defendant's presence without a warrant; (3) whether the judge erred in excluding a juror on his own motion; and (4) whether the judge erred in charging with respect to factors which the jury might consider in making their determination as to whether the offense constituted murder in the first or second degree.
We conclude that there was no error as to issues (1), (2), and (3) above. As to issue (4), we Conclude that there was error, but it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, we affirm the judgments.
We summarize the evidence presented. The incident in question occurred on February 7, 1975, at Cy's Variety & Package Store in Dorchester. Present in the store that evening were Cyril Miller, the owner of the store, and Eva Dodds, a friend who was assisting him as a clerk. At the rear of the store was a beer chest above which was a loft area in which was located a four-inch square peephole through which the front area of the store could be observed.
Miller stationed himself in the loft area at approximately 5 p.m. on the day in question while Dodds remained on duty in the front of the store. About 10:30 p.m. Miller heard someone ask Dodds for a pint of Wild Irish Rose wine. About a minute later he heard a voice say loudly, "All right. Give up the cash. Give it up." Miller immediately looked through the peephole and observed two men in the store. He saw one man, wearing a green army jacket with a poncho hood which obscured his face, taking the cash from the register, an estimated $752.10. The second man, described by Miller as a light-skinned black man, five feet eight inches tall with a moustache and small beard and wearing a dark blue or black coat and a knit cap and subsequently identified by Miller as the defendant, was standing across a counter from Dodds pointing a gun at her chest. He observed the defendant through the peephole for half a minute to one minute while reaching for a shotgun which he kept in the loft. As he turned away to grab the gun, he heard a shot. He heard Dodds scream and immediately thrust his shotgun through the peephole and fired. He was unsure whether he had hit anyone, but he subsequently found some torn lining from a blue nylon jacket caught in a wire mesh grating in the wall, behind which were imbedded several shotgun pellets. Miller then left the peephole, and the men fled. Dodds died as a result of a gunshot wound of the chest.
The Boston police arrived at the scene within a few minutes, and Miller gave them the description of the two men as above. Officer Patrick Maloney broadcast the description, including information that one of the men may have been suffering from gunshot wounds. Shortly thereafter, about 11:30 p.m., Maloney received a report from a police detective that a man suffering gunshot wounds had admitted himself to Boston City Hospital. Maloney and his partner Detective Tower went immediately to the hospital and learned that two men, one white and one black, had recently been admitted for treatment of gunshot wounds. Hospital records indicated that the defendant was admitted at 10:50 p.m. suffering from multiple gunshot wounds of the left shoulder.
Miller was brought to the hospital by another police officer about midnight. He was accompanied by Maloney and Tower to the Shortell Unit, a holding area for the X-ray unit, where the defendant, the black man who had admitted himself for treatment of gunshot wounds, had been taken. Miller identified the defendant as the man who had shot Eva Dodds. We will discuss the identification procedure in greater detail in connection with our discussion of the issues raised by the defendant with regard to his motion to suppress identification.
The defendant was placed under arrest immediately following the identification. During questioning which followed the giving of Miranda warnings and the defendant's expression of willingness to talk, Maloney seized as evidence a bag found at the foot of the defendánt's bed which contained the clothing he was wearing at the time of his admission to the hospital. In the bag was, among other items of apparel, a blue nylon jacket with shredded padding in the area of the wound. Subsequent microscopic analysis indicated that the padding of the jacket matched the shreds of padding found at the store.
The defense was one of alibi. The defendant was employed full time at an auto body shop at a wage of approximately $170 a week. He worked on the day of the crimes and was paid approximately $125 after taxes. The defendant testified that he went shopping after work and then stopped and had a few beers. He was walking to his girl friend's house around 10 or 10:30 p.m. when he saw a fight in progress on the street and stopped to watch. He testified that one of the men involved in the fight got a gun and fired several shots, one of which hit the defendant. He was driven to the hospital by a woman with whom he was slightly acquainted who had emerged from a nearby store.
1. The identification issues. We first discuss the circumstances in which the defendant was identified by Miller, as developed in the course of the voir dire hearing held by the trial judge on the defendant's motion to suppress. When Miller arrived at the hospital, he was accompanied by Maloney and Tower to the Shortell Unit. Maloney told Miller that they were taking him to a room in which there was a man who had been admitted for treatment of gunshot wounds. He asked Miller to enter the room alone and look at the patients without saying anything while in the room and then to return and tell him whether he could identify anyone. The officers waited outside the room.
At the time Miller entered the room, there were approximately five to seven patients lying in beds all wearing hospital johnnies and covered with sheets. Maloney testified during voir dire that he remembered seeing one other black patient in the room. Miller testified that there may have been three or four black men. It was not possible to tell on visual observation of the men in the room which of them was suffering from gunshot wounds.
The defendant was lying on a bed on the left side of the room. Miller looked around, and observed the defendant. He returned outside to the officers and told them that he thought he had seen the man. Maloney told Miller that he had to be sure of his identification, whereupon Ma- loney and Miller entered the room together. Miller went with the officer to the defendant's bed, walked around it looking at the defendant, and then told Maloney that he was sure that the defendant was the man he had shot at in his store.
The defendant was also identified by Miller at the defendant's probable cause hearing when the defendant was standing alone in the dock. The probable cause hearing had been continued from its initially scheduled date when the judge granted the defendant's request for an in-court lineup. Defense counsel undertook to make the necessary arrangements for a lineup on the continued date. When the probable cause hearing was held, no lineup was conducted because the arrangements had not been made and because there were insufficient people in the court room on the date of the hearing to make a lineup possible.
The defendant moved prior to trial to suppress the out-of-court and in-court identifications. The judge denied the motion, making his findings on the record. He apparently assumed that the confrontation in question was a one-on-one showup, but he denied the motion based on his findings that there was nothing coercive or suggestive in the procedures employed by the police.
The defendant raises two issues with regard to the denial of the motion to suppress identification: (1) whether the judge erred in limiting the scope of examination during the voir dire hearing, and (2) whether the confrontations were so suggestive as to constitute a violation of due process. We find no reversible error.
Even considering the broad discretion permitted the judge in controlling the scope of cross-examination, we see no good reason here for the judge's limitation of examination related to circumstances surrounding the hospital confrontation. Defense counsel attempted to examine witnesses with respect to the number and descriptions of people in the hospital at the time of the confrontation and in the area of the confrontation, both in the long corridor leading to the room and in the room itself, but he was denied such opportunity beyond establishing the limited information that there were five to seven other patients in the room, one or more of whom were black. The judge also limited exploration of how closely Miller had looked at the other people in the room.
Since eyewitness identification often plays a major, if not a determinative, role in the trial of criminal offenses, and the dangers of mistaken identification are great and the result possibly tragic, defendants must be allowed to examine fully during the voir dire hearing the totality of circumstances, and certainly the presence and description of other persons in the area is an important circumstance. In a case suggestive of unfairness in the confrontation process, failure to allow full development of the circumstances surrounding the identification might well warrant setting aside the verdict of guilt.
Nevertheless the limitations imposed by the judge in this case are not fatal, because, even taken as a one-on-one confrontation, the entire identification process was of a type and in circumstances which we have repeatedly upheld as free from the elements of unfairness which warrant suppression of the evidence. The judge's refusal to allow full examination of witnesses during the voir dire hearing with respect to descriptions of other persons who were present in the area in which the confrontations occurred leaves this court with no fair alternative other than to examine the case on a one-on-one basis.
We reiterate our general disapproval of one-on-one confrontations. See Commonwealth v. Barnett, 371 Mass. 87 (1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1049 (1977). However, "a claimed violation of due process of law in the conduct of a confrontation depends on the totality of the circumstances surrounding it." Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 (1967). The identification at the hospital is governed by our recent holding in Commonwealth v. Barnett, supra.
The confrontation in Barnett also took place in a hospital setting. The witness and the defendant had both been wounded in the incident and both were taken to the same hospital. After emergency treatment was rendered to both, police officers arranged to have the witness's litter placed next to that of the defendant without informing the witness of the impending confrontation, and the witness immediately identified the defendant as the man who had shot him.
We stated in Barnett, supra at 91-92: "A 'one-on-one' confrontation with a person in custody is disfavored generally as a basis of identification . but such showups of suspects to eyewitnesses of crimes have been regularly held permissible when conducted by the police promptly after the criminal event. Of course, where the circumstances are so exigent as to exclude waiting to arrange a lineup, the case is very clear____Exigent or special circumstances, however, are not prerequisite____ [T]he police procedure of arranging these showups is recognized as usual and natural and justified by the need for efficient investigation in the immediate aftermath of crime____To have the witness view the suspect while his recollection or mental image of the offender is still fresh, before other images crowd in or his attempts to verbalize his impressions can themselves distort the original picture, provides the witness with good opportunity for an accurate identi-fication____The general view that such speedy confrontations are permissible is accepted in this jurisdiction and elsewhere."
In the case now before us, as in Barnett, there was a danger that the hospital setting of the confrontation was inherently suggestive, but there are other factors which override the possible suggestiveness of the setting. Two factors to which we have given great weight are that the confrontation took place in the immediate aftermath of the crime as part of reasonable police investigation of the crime, see Commonwealth v. Barnett, supra; Commonwealth v. Denault, 362 Mass. 564, 566 (1972); Commonwealth v. Leaster, 362 Mass. 407, 411 (1972); Commonwealth v. Connolly, 356 Mass. 617, 624 (1970); Commonwealth v. Bumpus, 354 Mass. 494, 501 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1034 (1969), and that the witness had previously given the police a description of the assailant within a short time of the incident, see Commonwealth v. Denault, supra; Commonwealth v. Leaster, supra; Commonwealth v. Bumpus, supra at 500; cf. Commonwealth v. Barnett, supra at 93. Both of these factors are present in this case and mitigate the suggestiveness of the hospital confrontation. Miller had an opportunity to observe the assailant in circumstances in which there was no direct threat to himself and gave police a general description of the assailant within minutes of the crime, a description which fit the defendant. The hospital confrontation occurred within two hours of the crime, and the police had information indicating that the suspect was fully ambulatory and in fact that his injuries were not even so serious as to have required immediate medical attention.
The police took steps to minimize the suggestiveness of the setting: the defendant was not taken into custody until after the identification, they did not point out to Miller the man suffering from gunshot wounds among the five to seven patients in the room, and they initially sent Miller into the room alone to view the patients. While we cannot agree with the finding of the judge that there was no suggestiveness in this confrontation, we find that the confrontation was in the totality of circumstances not so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification as to deny due process of law.
The identification by Miller of the defendant at the probable cause hearing was not tainted by the fact that the defendant was alone in the dock. The critical role which identification often plays in such proceedings is such that we would encourage the use of lineups. However, the use of lineups in that context is not constitutionally mandated. The record in this case indicates that defense counsel was afforded an opportunity to arrange a lineup and failed to do so.
We conclude that the two out-of-court identifications were admissible at trial, as was the in-court identification, since it was not based on a prior impermissibly suggestive confrontation. See Commonwealth v. Botelho, 369 Mass. 860, 867 (1976).
The defendant also moved to suppress the clothing taken from the foot of his bed after his arrest. We conclude that the arrest was valid and based on probable cause. The seizure of the clothing, while warrantless, was incident to a valid arrest and was "evidence of the crime for which the arrest... [had] been made." G. L. c. 276, § 1, as amended by St. 1974, c. 508.
2. The jury selection issue. The defendant next argues that the judge erred in excusing a prospective juror on his own motion. The judge excused Dorothea Ryan after the defendant had announced himself content with the panel but before the jury were sworn. The colloquy between the judge and juror Ryan is set out in its entirety in the margin.*
The defendant first argues that prior to excusing juror Ryan the judge failed to make the examination of the juror required by G. L. c. 234, § 28, as amended by St. 1975, c. 335, which provides in part: "For the purpose of determining whether a juror stands indifferent in the case, if it appears that, as a result of the impact of considera tions which may cause a decision or decisions to be made in whole or in part upon issues extraneous to the case, including, but not limited to, community attitudes, possible exposure to potentially prejudicial material or possible preconceived opinions toward the credibility of certain classes of persons, the juror may not stand indifferent, the court shall, or the parties or their attorneys may, with the permission and under the direction of the court, examine the juror specifically with respect to such considerations, attitudes, exposure, opinions or any other matters which may, as aforesaid, cause a decision or decisions to be made in whole or in part upon issues extraneous to the issues in the case." This statute is designed to impose a duty on the judge to examine jurors fully with respect to possible bias or prejudice if it appears that particular jurors or the jury pool as a whole may be influenced by extraneous factors to the extent that jurors would be unable to render an impartial verdict on the evidence presented to them and must, therefore, be excused for cause. The statute does not preclude a judge from excusing a juror without the specified examination. Rather, its focus is in the opposite direction; that is, if there is reason to suspect that a juror or jurors are not or may not be indifferent within the meaning of the statute, the judge must inquire fully before declaring jurors indifferent and allowing them to be seated. If there was error in the judge's action, therefore, it did not lie in a violation of G. L. c. 234, § 28.
The defendant next argues that the juror was excused because of her opposition to capital punishment. The beliefs of a prospective juror with respect to capital punishment are irrelevant in this Commonwealth since the death penalty may not be imposed, Commonwealth v. O'Neal, 369 Mass. 242 (1975) (O'Neal II); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), and, even when the death penalty could have been imposed, mere opposition to capital punishment without more was not a valid ground for exclusion. Commonwealth v. Curry, 368 Mass. 195 (1975). Commonwealth v. McAlister, 365 Mass. 454 (1974). There is no suggestion in the record that the judge intended to exclude a class of jurors opposed to the death penalty.
The record in this case suggests that the ground of exclusion was not opposition to the death penalty. The judge made no inquiry of other jurors with respect to their opinions on capital punishment and only raised the issue with juror Ryan after she apparently made her beliefs known to a court officer.
The record is devoid of any suggestion of the judge's actual reason for exclusion. However, we are hesitant to second guess the action of a trial judge in the jury selection process where only one juror is involved. The trial judge bears a heavy responsibility for ensuring that only jurors who will fairly and attentively consider the evidence before them are seated, and he alone has an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the prospective juror. It may well be that from his judicial experience he concluded that he was confronted with a juror who was demonstrating her unwillingness to serve on the panel.
The judge has a great deal of discretion in the jury selection process. Commonwealth v. McKay, 363 Mass. 220, 223 (1973). Commonwealth v. French, 357 Mass. 356, 400, A-13 (1970), judgments vacated as to death penalty sub nom. Limone v. Massachusetts, 408 U.S. 936 (1972) ("[the judge] was entitled to exercise judgment, within a substantial range of discretion, concerning the capacity and suitability of each of them intelligently to perform the functions of a juror"). Our general rule has been that "[i]n the absence of action or inaction which constitutes a denial of constitutional rights... or which constitutes an error of law, such as an abuse of discretion, we will not interfere with the trial judge in the jury selection process." Commonwealth v. McKay, supra at 223. See Commonwealth v. Montecalvo, 367 Mass. 46, 51 (1975).
On the basis of the record before us, we are unable to find that the judge abused his discretion in excusing juror Ryan. However, we stress the importance of a trial judge's establishing on the record the cause for excusing a juror. The factors which influence the internal deliberative processes of a jury panel are such that any deviation from random selection other than for those causes specified by G. L. c. 234, § 28, must be suspect, and it is incumbent on the judge to demonstrate that his interference in the selection process is for cause and not based on personal whim. However, in the case now before us we find no indication that the defendant was denied a fair trial by the exclusion of a single juror.
3. The charge. It is clear that the only theory advanced by the Commonwealth to support a conviction of murder in the first degree was that of felony murder. The judge appropriately limited his charge to accord with this approach. He also appropriately prefaced the portion of his charge which was devoted to the murder indictment by instructing the jury as to the provisions of G. L. c. 265, § 1, which reads as follows: "Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, is murder in the first degree. Murder which does not appear to be iiflhe first degree is murder in the second degree. Petit treason shall be prosecuted and punished as murder. The degree of murder shall be found by the jury."
The judge informed the jury that three alternative verdicts were available on the murder indictment: not guilty, guilty of murder in the first degree, or guilty of murder in the second degree. He also, of course, identified and defined armed robbery as a crime punishable by any term of years up to life imprisonment. The judge, in our view, was correct in submitting verdicts of murder in both the first and second degree for the jury's consideration, even though it could be argued that the evidence would support only one of two verdicts: either not guilty or guilty of murder in the first degree. In instructing as to murder in the second degree, the judge specifically, and correctly, relied on the statutory language in c. 265, § 1, that the degree of murder is for the jury to determine. Further, it is clear that the jury, within their power to appraise evidence selectively, might have accepted as credible enough evidence to establish a conviction of murder in the second degree, but might have declined to accept such further evidence as tended to prove a case of murder in the first degree.
The defendant's assignment of error is concerned solely with that portion of the charge in which the jury were told, in substance, that, even if they determined that the defendant was engaged in committing an armed robbery when he fired the fatal shots, they should consider "aggravating or extenuating" circumstances to determine whether the evidence was murder in the first or second degree. In substance, the jury were told that they "might or might not" consider the age of the defendant, whether the robbery was going smoothly, and whether it seemed to the jury that the killing was unnecessary for the perpetration of armed robbery. The defendant now argues that the "circumstances" were not fairly selected from the evidence.
We conclude that there was error in this aspect of the charge, but we do not reach this conclusion for the reasons urged by the defendant. A homicide which the jury determined to be an armed robbery-murder is not properly reduced, on the basis of extenuating circumstances such as those enumerated in the charge, to murder in the second degree. We have no doubt that the judge's instructions were based on ambiguous language in previous opinions of this court. See Commonwealth v. DiStasio, 298 Mass. 562, 564, cert. denied, 302 U.S. 683, 759 (1937), *and cases there cited; cf. Commonwealth v. Chase, 350 Mass. 738 744, cert. denied, 385 U.S. 906 (1966). Because of the specificity of the language of the statute, c. 265, § 1, in our view the "aggravating circumstances" referred to in orneases are those delineated by the Legislature, viz.: murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or life imprisonment. Where a jury reach a determination that the statutory "circumstance" (in this case armed robbery-murder) has been met, they should return a verdict of murder in the first degree.
It follows that the instructions were erroneous. Nevertheless, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, because the charge was more favorable to the defendant than that to which he was entitled.
We add that the charge should have included, in some appropriate form of words, an instruction that the jury have a duty, if they conclude that the defendant is guilty, to return a verdict of guilty of the highest crime which has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt against the defendant. See Sparf & Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 63 (1895). This language would serve to. impress on the jury that while they were empowered to return the lesser verdict, they had a duty to consider the evidence in light of the principles of law given to them by the judge. *8The failure to give such an instruction, if error, was also harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, since such words could not conceivably favor the defendant's cause.
4. We have reviewed the entire record in this case and find no grounds for exercising our powers under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Judgments affirmed.
The clerk: "Juror No. 276, Dorothea D. Ryan, Seat No. 14." The JUDGE: "Miss Ryan, did you hear the questions that I put to the other jurors?" (The prospective juror nodded affirmatively.) The judge: "Do they affect you in any way whatsoever?" The juror: "No." The JUDGE: "Read this question, if you will." (Juror reading exhibit A.) The juror: "No." The judge: "You may take Seat No. 14." (Juror seated.) Counsel for the defendant: "The defendant is content." The judge: "Have the court officer come up for a moment." (Court officer Rosen at bench.) The judge: "Was there some indication from one of the jurors about the death penalty?" Court officer Rosen: "I think Juror No. 14." The judge: "That's Mrs. Ryan. Come up." (Juror Ryan at bench.) The JUROR: "I don't want to cause any trouble so I thought I should state my views. I am strongly against the death penalty." The judge: "What concern is that in..." The juror: "I thought if..." The judge: "The death penalty is outlawed in Massachusetts, in any event." The juror: "I'm sorry." The judge: "The question of innocence or guilt hasn't got anything to do with the punishment. You are excused." The clerk: "No. 276, Dorothea Ryan, you are excused by order of the Court." Counsel for the defendant: "Your Honor, the defendant takes exceptions to that." The judge: "What's that?" COUNSEL for THE defendant: "The defendant takes exception to that order, your Honor." The judge: "What do you mean?" Counsel for the defendant: "Your Honor, the defendant wishes that juror on this panel." The judge: "I will allow you a peremptory challenge for the successor." Counsel for the defendant: "My exception."
The 1975 amendment substituted the word "shall" for the word 'may" following the word "court" in the quoted sentence.
But see Commonwealth v. Rego, 360 Mass. 385, 395 (1971), wherein, unlike the instant case, there was also some affirmative evidence which tended to show that the felony in which the defendants were participating at the time of the homicide was not a felony punishable by death or life imprisonment. See the Rego case at 393-396 for a discussion of the appropriate contents of the charge as to the murder indictment.
From our review of the entire record, we do not agree with the defendant's assertion that the "circumstances" were not fairly selected.
In the DiStasio case, the "ambiguous" language at 564 was as follows: "These statutes do not create two separate and distinct crimes, murder in the first degree and murder in the second degree, which must be pleaded accordingly. 'The legislature manifestly considers murder as one kind of species of crime, the punishment of which may be more or less severe according to certain aggravating circumstances, which may appear on the trial' " (citations omitted).
As to murder, and the degree of murder, we think the charge in a case like this should include at least the following: a definition of homicide, and a definition of murder in the second degree; a definition of armed robbery and attempted armed robbery; a reading of the murder statute, c. 265, § 1; an identification of armed robbery as a crime "punishable with death or imprisonment for life"; and a submission to the jury of the issues whether the defendant committed a homicide, and whether that homicide was in the course of an armed robbery or attempted armed robbery. These factors are to be considered by the jury in light of (1) instructions by the judge as to the Commonwealth's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) instructions that the jurors have a duty to return a verdict of guilty of the highest crime proved against the defendant. From this charge, the jury should appreciate their power and, more important, their duty, within the context of the statutory expression, "The degree of murder shall be found by the jury."
The charge in this case was generally sufficient. Indeed, as to the charge, the defendant excepts only to that aspect in which the judge arrayed the "circumstances" of the case.