March 3, 2011
Commonwealth v. Washington
Docket No. 10128
Supreme Judicial Court
Criminal, traffic stop, seizure, witness impeachment
A Superior Court jury found Derrick Washington guilty of murder in the first degree. Washington filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. He then appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed his convicted and the denial of his motion for a new trial.
Facts: Washington, along with two co-defendants, shot three men, two of whom died from their injuries. Washington and his co-defendants were pulled over while driving the next day due to a missing registration plate. The trooper requested identification from the driver and both passengers because the passengers were not wearing seatbelts. The trooper arrested them after discovering outstanding arrest warrants through warrant check, and discovered $6,720 on the defendant. The defendant chose not to testify at trial, and instead presented an alibi witness who asserted that he had been at her house the day of the crime until after the time of the crime.
Issue 1: Did the defense attorney’s failure to challenge seizure of the money at the traffic stop constitute ineffective assistance of counsel?
No. Defense counsel filed a motion to suppress the items found on the defendant prior to trial. The motion was denied by a judge in the Superior Court. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are examined to determine whether there was “error at trial and, if so, whether that error was likely to have influenced the jury’s conclusion.”
On appeal the defendant maintained that his attorney should have argued that the trooper was unjustified in demanding identification from the passengers since he could not have seen the passengers without seatbelts when the car was in motion and thus had no probable cause to issue a citation. Police officers do not have a general right to demand identification from a passenger in a car, but may do so if they validly intend to issue a citation for violation of a seatbelt law. The standard of review for the issuance of a citation is probable cause. Probable cause is reasonably inferred where, as here, passengers are not wearing seatbelts very shortly after the traffic stop.
Issue 2: Was the prosecutor’s impeachment of defendant’s alibi witness improper?
No. While a person has no duty to offer exculpatory evidence to the police, the failure to offer such evidence where one’s “natural response” would be to do so may support a reasonable inference that the information is not credible. A prosecutor may impeach a witness for failing to approach police officers with exculpatory evidence only if he first establishes (1) the witness knew of the pending charges in enough detail to realize the information was exculpatory, (2) the witness had reason to make the information available, and (3) the witness knew how to report the information to the proper authorities.
Only the first prong was at issue in this case. The court found it was satisfied since the witness knew the charges were serious and that the events had occurred close in time to when the defendant was allegedly at her house. In addition, the prosecutor’s rhetorical question to the jury was just an offhand comment and did not create a substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice.
Issue 3: Did the judge err in refusing to instruct the jurors in accordance with Comm. v. Ciampa?
No. Ciampa instructions need only be given if a witness has promised to provide truthful testimony for the government, which the witness had not.
--Prepared by RAA
