Commonwealth v. Bernardino Baran-Garcia.

── Commonwealth v. Bernardino Baran-Garcia. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General 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-952 COMMONWEALTH vs. BERNARDINO BARAN-GARCIA. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 On January 19, 2023, after a jury trial in the Boston Municipal Court, the defendant was convicted of assault by means of a dangerous weapon, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15B (b), and larceny from a person, in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 25 (b). 1 The defendant now appeals, contending that (1) a photographic array identification was unduly suggestive; (2) the motion judge was not impartial during a hearing on a motion to suppress the photographic array identification; (3) an officer's testimony at trial contained inadmissible prior consistent 1For each charge, the defendant received a sentence of two and one-half years committed to the house of correction to be served concurrently. statement evidence and hearsay; and (4) the evidence was insufficient to find that the defendant was the person responsible for the assault by means of a dangerous weapon. We affirm. Background. Given the nature of the defendant's claims, we recite the facts as the jury could have found them in some detail. See Commonwealth v. Kapaia, 490 Mass. 787, 787-788 (2022). The convictions relate to two separate May 28, 2021 incidents that occurred on the same Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) Red Line train within minutes of each other. 1. Larceny from a person. J.J. 2, the victim in the first incident, boarded a Red Line train at the Fields Corner station; the incident occurred shortly thereafter, at around 5:30 P.M., and lasted approximately ten to fifteen minutes. While riding the train, she noticed three people -- two men and one woman -- who had entered the train at the JFK/UMass station and were coming in and out of the train and "constantly" changing seats. J.J. subsequently described one man, who she identified as the defendant, as a "Hispanic male in his 20's wearing a black hoodie and jeans." She described the other man as Hispanic, but older, "in his 40's, maybe or late 30's," and the woman as a 2 We adopt the convention used by the parties to refer to the victims. 2 "fair skin female, maybe late 20's, early 30's with like kind of orangey hair in a ponytail." The defendant approached J.J., attempted to give her a rose while telling her she looked beautiful, and yelled at her about Jesus and needing to repent. J.J. asked him to leave her alone, but he continued. Finally, one of the defendant's companions, who was some distance away, told J.J. to accept the rose and that the defendant would not do anything and leave her alone if she accepted the flower. As a result, J.J. took the rose in an effort to have the defendant leave her alone. The defendant then went and sat with his two companions. After the defendant sat down, J.J., using her cell phone, called her boyfriend to tell him that someone was har