Heard: October 4, 2017.
found and returned in the Superior Court Department on May
pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Kenneth J.
Fishman, J., and the cases were tried before Thomas A.
Barbara A. Munro for the defendant.
Stephanie Martin Glennon, Assistant Attorney General, for the
Present: Green, Hanlon, & Neyman, JJ.
jury trial, the defendant, Robert Galipeau, was convicted of
armed robbery arising from the gunpoint theft of cash from
three men at approximately 1 A.M. on April 18, 2013,
immediately after the victims left the Assembly Bar in
Quincy. The sole issue at trial was the identification of the
robber. The defendant argues on appeal that his motion to
suppress a photographic identification should have been
allowed and that the trial judge improperly allowed an
in-court identification. We affirm.
Motion to suppress photographic identification.
recite the facts as found by the motion judge, supplemented
by uncontroverted testimony" submitted during the
evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress.
Commonwealth v. Cordero, 477 Mass.
237, 238 (2017). We accept all of the judge's factual
findings, none of which is clearly erroneous. See
Commonwealth v. Borgos, 464 Mass. 23, 32 (2012) .
the robbery, Leo Tang, one of the victims, told the police
that the robber had followed him and his two friends from the
Assembly Bar to his car across the street. Tang described the
robber as a white male, approximately five feet, ten inches
tall, scruffy looking, with facial hair, and wearing a hooded
sweatshirt, gray shirt, and jeans. Tang had seen the man in
the bar earlier that night, with a Budweiser beer next to
him. After the police received this information from Tang, an
officer met with Robert Sylva, the bar manager, to view
surveillance videotape. The videotape depicted a white man
drinking a Budweiser at a table; he fit the description Tang
had given. Sylva told the officer that the person drinking a
Budweiser in the video was the defendant.
the police had the defendant's name, two officers went to
his home and knocked on his front door but received no
answer. They went toward the rear door, and, while walking
along the right side of the house, they saw the defendant
standing at the sink in the kitchen of the ground floor
apartment. The officers then went back to the front door and
knocked again. They knocked on the door without response for
a lengthy period of time before the defendant finally
answered. He was wearing only a pair of jeans and sneakers,
and his face appeared to be freshly shaved, with cuts on his
upper and lower lip that were actively bleeding.
approximately 3 A.M., police officers brought Tang, in a
police cruiser, to the street outside the defendant's
house for a showup identification procedure. Tang viewed the
defendant, who was standing on the sidewalk, for five to ten
minutes. Tang did not identify the defendant as the robber at
that time, saying that he could not be sure of an
identification because the robber had been scruffier, with
that day, Quincy Police Detective Ricky Wash created a
computer-generated photo array, including the defendant's
photo and six other photos of men with similar physical
characteristics. The photo identification procedure was