Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the rule in Commonwealth v. Crayton requiring a showing of good reason for certain in-court identifications does not apply to probation violation hearings. The court concluded that the in-court identification was sufficiently reliable and that the evidence supported, by a preponderance of the evidence, a finding that the probationer violated probation by committing a new offense. The order revoking probation was affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the rule in Commonwealth v. Crayton requiring a good reason before admitting an in-court identification when the witness made no prior out-of-court identification applies to probation violation hearings.
- Whether the in-court identification of Jarrett was sufficiently reliable to satisfy due process and be considered at the probation violation hearing.
- Whether sufficient evidence supported the finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Jarrett violated probation by committing a new offense involving cocaine distribution.
Holdings
- The good-reason rule governing in-court showup identifications in criminal trials does not apply to probation violation hearings.
- The in-court identification was sufficiently reliable to be considered at the probation violation hearing.
- The evidence was sufficient for the judge to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Jarrett violated probation by participating in the distribution of cocaine.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, we conclude that the "good reason" standard set forth in Crayton, 470 Mass. at 238-244, regarding in-court showup identifications does not apply to probation violation hearings.” (12)
“The "touchstone" of an "accurate and reliable determination," which underpins the due process question of fundamental fairness, remains.” (13)
Factual background
Police Officer Shana Rivera observed Gregory Gomes, whom she knew to be a drug user, and Sean McCarthy engage in conduct suggesting a drug transaction while following a tall, thin Black man wearing a red shirt and a man bun into a mall. Police later found crack cocaine on McCarthy, who said he obtained it from Gomes, and officers arrested Jarrett after he rushed into a nearby gym; they found a digital scale and $292 on him. Rivera identified Jarrett at the probation violation hearing as the man she had observed with Gomes and McCarthy, and the Superior Court judge found the circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish a probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Procedural history
Jarrett pleaded guilty in 2018 to two counts of attempting to derive support from a prostitute and received a partially suspended sentence with probation conditions. After the probation department issued a notice of surrender alleging that he committed a new cocaine-distribution offense, a Superior Court judge held a probation violation hearing, found a violation, revoked probation, and ordered Jarrett to serve the remaining six-month balance of his sentence. Jarrett appealed to the Superior Court and Appeals Court, and the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case on its own motion.