Opinion ID: 2083209
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Produce Photographs Shown to Witnesses.

Text: Clark maintains that his motion for the production of photographs shown to or seen by witnesses for the Commonwealth who were unable to identify the defendant should not have been denied. According to the defendant, the judge's refusal to require the Commonwealth to produce these photographs following the defendant's general pretrial motion for the production of exculpatory evidence prejudiced the Defendant's constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of law. See United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). We do not agree. During oral argument, the defendant conceded that the judge properly denied the defendant's motion, made during trial, for the production of the photographs shown to the witnesses. The Commonwealth is not required to produce the photographs. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Brown, 376 Mass. 156, 161-164 (1978); Commonwealth v. Gibson, 357 Mass. 45, 46-47, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 837 (1970); Commonwealth v. Clark, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 481, 484-485 (1975). Instead, the defendant now limits his argument to the assertion that the defendant had a right to know whether or not the photographs exhibited to the witnesses did in fact contain a photograph of George Clark. Where a witness identifies a defendant during a pretrial photographic identification procedure after the witness has been unable to make an identification from another group of photographs, the defendant is entitled to know whether the defendant's photograph actually appeared in both sets of photographs. [12] Commonwealth v. Clark, supra at 485. See Commonwealth v. Brown, supra at 162-163. Presumably, such information would serve to aid the defendant in impeaching any identification made by that witness. Accord, Commonwealth v. Dougan, 377 Mass. 303, 316-317 (1979). Here only Hunter identified the defendant. The only array shown to Hunter was available to the defendant and is an exhibit. To the extent that the defendant's argument is that other witnesses, who were unable to identify the defendant, may have bypassed the defendant's picture in the array, that argument is without merit. Those witnesses could neither identify the picture of the defendant, nor could they identify him at trial. Thus there is no error in the denial of the defendant's motion.