Opinion
13-P-1487
02-04-2015
COMMONWEALTH v. JUAN ORTIZ.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant appeals from his convictions on two counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, G. L. c. 265, § 15A(b); two counts of assault by means of a dangerous weapon, G. L. c. 265, § 15B(b); and four counts of armed robbery, G. L. c. 265, § 17.
The defendant's sole argument is that the four victims perjured themselves when they identified him in court as their assailant. There is no evidence of perjury, and the defendant relies on his own assertion that their testimony was perjurious. To the extent the defendant argues that the victims were not credible, that was a question for the jury. A request that we reweigh the evidence misperceives the role of our appellate court. One of the victims identified the defendant both at the scene and at trial. Two of the victims did not participate in any identification procedure at the scene, but they, too, identified the defendant at trial. To be sure, a fourth victim was unable to identify the defendant at the scene as the assailant, and he nonetheless identified him at trial. It was, however, open to the defendant to emphasize this inconsistency at trial, and to argue, as he does here, that the three victims who identified him for the first time at trial were merely trying to support their friend, the other victim, in his identification. Again, in the absence of any basis for a conclusion that as a matter of law the victims' testimony could not be true, it was for the jury to assess their credibility.
Judgments affirmed.
By the Court (Green, Rubin & Agnes, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
Clerk Entered: February 4, 2015.