Commonwealth v. Johnson
Annotate this CaseDefendant was indicted on seven charges, including armed assault in a dwelling and breaking and entering in the daytime. Defendant moved to suppress the victim’s out-of-court and in-court identifications of Defendant as the intruder he had struggled with in his home. The motion judge, applying the common-law principles of fairness in Commonwealth v. Jones, allowed the motion to suppress, concluding that, through no fault of the police, the identifications were “impermissibly tainted by the suggestive circumstances.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the motion judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the motion to suppress the identifications.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.