Facts: When an officer approached the vehicle in which the Defendant was a passenger, he noticed that the Defendant's door was open between six and twelve inches. During the stop, police recognized the driver (not the Defendant) as someone who had three outstanding warrants and with respect to whom they had received credible information that he possessed a stolen handgun. The officer also saw the Defendant, who appeared nervous and excited, make furtive gestures toward his waistband. Fearing that he may be in danger, the officer ordered the Defendant to exit the vehicle and subsequently conducted a pat frisk. Upon frisking the Defendant, the officer found a firearm.
Procedural History: The Defendant moved to suppress evidence seized by the officer following the exit order, arguing that the officer unlawfully ordered him to exit the vehicle. The court denied the Defendant's motion to suppress and he was subsequently convicted of unlawfully carrying a firearm, and unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm. He was also found in violation of the armed career criminal statute. The jury acquitted him of unlawful possession of ammunition. The Defendant appealed, alleging that a series of errors marred his trial and precluded his retrial such as the court's failure to suppress evidence seized following the exit order and that admission of certificates of ballistics analysis without live testimony from the ballistician and laboratory analyst who produced them violated the Confrontation Clause.
Issue #1: Whether the police officer lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify the exit order?
No. Given the nervous and excited appearance of the Defendant in addition to his furtive gestures both inside and outside of the vehicle, the court concluded that the officer had a heightened awareness of danger, which justified his exit order and pat frisk. Furthermore, the officer's observation that the Defendant's door was ajar, gave rise to the officer's fear that the defendant would either attack or flee, thus allowing him to order the Defendant to exit the vehicle in order to prevent possible harm.
Issue #2: Whether the court's admission of certificates of ballistics analysis without live testimony from the ballistician and laboratory analyst who produced them was a reversible error?
Yes. The court found that because the certificates were testimonial in nature, the Defendant was entitled to examine the ballistician and the laboratory analyst who produced the certificates at issue.
Issue #3: Whether the Defendant's conviction for unlawfully carrying a firearm should be vacated because it is a lesser included offense of unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm?
No. The court held that the offenses of unlawfully carrying a firearm and unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm are not duplicative in that the Legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under the two statutes.
Issue #4: Whether retrying the Defendant on the loaded firearm charge is barred by his acquittal of the charge of possessing ammunition?
Yes. The Doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a subsequent prosecution if one of the issues decided at the first trial is an essential element of the alleged crime at issue in the second trial or it may bar the introduction of certain facts determined in the defendant's favor at the first trial. Here, in the first trial, the jury determined that the Defendant did not possess the ammunition, therefore, in a new trial, the doctrine of issue preclusion prevents the Commonwealth from attempting to prove indirectly an issue the jury directly resolved in the defendant's favor in the first trial.
Issue #5: Whether G.L. c. 269, s10(a) and (n) violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
No. States may lawfully impose reasonable regulations on firearm possession. (MS)
