With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". after the robbery in the same vehicle asking questions about her vehicle. Conclusion. Because the defendant has not met his burden to establish a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice from the omission of the Rodriguez instruction, we affirm the convictions. So ordered. 1 The judge excluded Milagros Fernandez’s statement that she had come to the police in response to news reports that her automobile, the Galant, had been used as the getaway vehicle in the robbery. 2 We note that this case was tried before our most recent eyewitness identification cases, which altered our jurisprudence so as to give effect to certain generally accepted scientific advances in the understanding of the reliability of eyewitness identification. See Commonwealth v. Bastaldo, 472 Mass. 16, 23-30 (2015) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Gomes, 470 Mass. 352, 361-378

A: holding that instructions on crossracial identification required prospectively unless parties agree there was no crossracial identification
B: recognizing a trend in recent years to allow such testimony and collecting cases in which such testimony was allowed in cases involving crossracial identification identification after a long delay identification after observation under stress and psychological phenomena as the feedback factor and unconscious transference
C: holding that where the opportunity for positive identification is good and not weakened by prior failure to identify and the witness is positive in his identification even after crossexamination identification need not be received with caution
D: holding that there is no prejudice where the racial reference was for purposes of identification
A.