Opinion
No. SJC-10419.
November 20, 2009.
Supreme Judicial Court, Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress.
Rescript Opinions.
The defendant was convicted of unarmed robbery. G.L. c. 265, § 19 ( b). His only claim on appeal is that, before trial, a judge in the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence — including an identification of the defendant made by the victim — obtained after he was stopped by police on the afternoon of the robbery. He claims that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to make the stop. The Appeals Court rejected that argument and affirmed his conviction. Commonwealth v. Acevedo, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 453 (2009). We thereafter granted the defendant's application for further appellate review.
The relevant facts, drawn from the motion judge's findings, are set forth in the Appeals Court's opinion. See id. at 454-455. After careful review of the findings and consideration of the arguments from both sides, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress, for essentially the same reasons stated by the motion judge in her memorandum of decision and by the Appeals Court in its opinion. In the totality of the circumstances found by the judge, there was reasonable suspicion to justify the stop of the defendant.
Judgment affirmed. Pamela Lindmark for the defendant.
Fawn D. Balliro Andersen, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.