Commonwealth v. Shawn Walker.

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.

1The 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).
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).

2
"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.

3
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

4
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.

5