MROD

Massachusetts Appeals Court Summary Dispositions Pursuant to Rule 23.0 (formerly Rule 1:28)

Docket Number - 24-P-0374main content

 Back 
 

Case Details

COMMONWEALTH vs. SHAWN WALKER.
5/9/2025
Please use your browser search to search within the document
 

Document Content

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as 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 23.0 or 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).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
24-P-374
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
SHAWN WALKER.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The defendant, Shawn Walker, appeals from an order of a
District Court judge revoking his probation on the ground that
he committed new offenses stemming from an incident where he
allegedly fired two shots at a car.
1
The driver, who knew the
defendant, immediately reported the incident to the police.
Concluding that the judge acted within his discretion in finding
that the victim's prompt, detailed, corroborated, and videotaped
statements to the police were substantially reliable, we affirm.
1
The defendant's sentence was negated by a forthwith
sentence imposed by a Superior Court judge in July 2024. The
case remains properly before us. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 102
Mass. App. Ct. 233, 235 n.6 (2023).
2
1. Standard of review. "In considering an appeal from a
decision that a violation of probation occurred, a reviewing
court must determine 'whether the record discloses sufficient
reliable evidence to warrant the findings by the judge[, by a
preponderance of the evidence,] that [the probationer] had
violated the specified conditions of his [or her] probation.'"
Commonwealth v. Jarrett, 491 Mass. 437, 440 (2023), quoting
Commonwealth v. Morse, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 582, 594 (2000). Such
a finding may not be based solely on hearsay unless the hearsay
"has substantial indicia of reliability." Commonwealth v.
Grant G., 96 Mass. App. Ct. 721, 725 (2019), quoting
Commonwealth v. Hartfield, 474 Mass. 474, 484 (2016).
"In determining if hearsay evidence is substantially
reliable, the court may consider, among any other relevant
factors, whether that evidence (1) is based on personal
knowledge and/or direct observation, rather than on other
hearsay; (2) involves observations recorded close in time
to the events in question; (3) is factually detailed,
rather than generalized and conclusory; (4) is internally
consistent; (5) is corroborated by any evidence provided by
the probationer; (6) was provided by a disinterested
witness; or (7) was provided under circumstances that
support the veracity of the source."
Rule 7(b) of District/Municipal Courts Rules of Probation
Violation Proceedings (2015). "There is no requirement that
hearsay satisfy all the above criteria to be trustworthy and
reliable." Commonwealth v. Rainey, 491 Mass. 632, 647 (2023),
quoting Commonwealth v. Costa, 490 Mass. 118, 124 (2022).
3
"We review a judge's determination that hearsay is
substantially reliable, like other evidentiary decisions, under
an abuse of discretion standard." Commonwealth v. Gelin, 494
Mass. 777, 784 (2024), quoting Rainey, 491 Mass. at 648.
"[W]here a judge relies on hearsay evidence in finding a
violation of probation, the judge should set forth in writing or
on the record why the judge found the hearsay evidence to be
[substantially] reliable." Rainey, supra at 648, quoting
Hartfield, 474 Mass. at 485.
2. Substantial reliability. At the probation violation
hearing, the probation officer submitted various exhibits
including a videotape of a recorded interview of the victim
conducted by the police within ninety minutes of the shooting.
See Rainey, 491 Mass. at 648 (judge provided with statements on
video). The victim reported that the defendant fired twice at
her motor vehicle while she was stopped at a red light. The
victim's statements were based on her direct observation and
were extremely detailed, providing exact locations, path of
travel, restaurants passed, and the time of the shooting within
five minutes. Her account of the travel was corroborated by
video footage, and her report of the shooting was corroborated
by a ShotSpotter report and by photographs of a bullet hole in
her motor vehicle. See Commonwealth v. Ogarro, 95 Mass. App.
4
Ct. 662, 668 (2019) (hearsay corroborated by officer's personal
observations).
Finally, the victim knew the defendant, both from the
neighborhood and from his being prosecuted as a codefendant with
her boyfriend. She was aware of where he was from and of his
criminal record. In fact, the victim reported that she and the
defendant were having a dispute on social media. A police
officer provided her with a sequential photographic array, and
she chose the defendant immediately with full certainty. Cf.
Jarrett, 491 Mass. at 444 ("the Commonwealth's case would have
been strengthened by a nonsuggestive identification of him").
As in Commonwealth v. Leopold L., 96 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 803
(2020), where "the victim knew the perpetrator[] based on
previous interactions" and "was able to identify the attacker[]
in [a] photographic array[]," there was "an ample basis upon
which to conclude the hearsay was reliable."
Although the victim had been arguing with the defendant on
social media, this fact does not defeat the substantial
reliability of the victim's statements. See Ogarro, 95 Mass.
App. Ct. at 668-669 (hearsay from "an interested party"
substantially reliable where "based on her personal
participation in the incident and made to the officer
immediately thereafter" and was "detailed, internally consistent
5
account of the events"). In light of the many factors favoring
reliability, the judge acted within his discretion in finding
the victim's statements substantially reliable.
Finally, the judge set forth in writing the hearsay that he
found substantially reliable, the corroboration he relied upon,
which included the promptness of the victim's report, and that
that report was "in great detail." This was an adequate
explanation of the judge's decision. See Leopold L., 96 Mass.
App. Ct. at 803.
Order revoking probation and
imposing sentence affirmed.
By the Court (Vuono,
Ditkoff & Singh, JJ. ),
2
Clerk
Entered: May 9, 2025.
2
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.