Commonwealth v Montoya
Facts: The defendant was
arrested and indicted on multiple drug related charges after state troopers
seized twenty bags of suspected cocaine from his vehicle. A Superior Court Judge denied the defendant’s
subsequent motion to suppress items found in his vehicle and his post-arrest
statements. At trial, two drug
certificates were admitted that established the total weight of the bags of
cocaine was 39.74 grams and resulted in the defendant’s conviction under G.L.
c. 94C § 32E(b) which criminalizes trafficking in an amount over twenty-eight
grams. Defendant Montoya was convicted
on two other indictments and appealed both the motion to suppress ruling as
well as his convictions.
Prior to the appeal being docketed, the United States
Supreme Court issued its decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, overturning
prior case law by holding that a drug certificate is testimonial and cannot be
admitted at trial without the defendant having the chance to cross-examine the
drug certificate analyst.
The defendant advances four claims of error: (1) his Sixth Amendment right to confront
witnesses was violated due to the absence of the drug certificate analysts at
trial; (2) there was no probable cause for his arrest and the judge erred in
denying his motion to suppress evidence; (3) his postarrest statements were not
voluntary and should have been suppressed; and (4) ineffective trial counsel.
Issue #1: Was the
defendant’s Sixth Amendment right violated?
Because the defendant had not exhausted his direct appeal, the court
should consider the rule from Melendez-Diaz and determine whether the error was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
While the identity of the substance seized could be
correctly inferred from all of the evidence at trial, the properly admitted
evidence was not so overwhelming as to nullify the impact of the drug
certificate error. In addition, due to
the small weight differential between the statute limit and the weight of the
bags seized, the impact of the drug certificate error again was not outweighed
by properly admitted evidence. The jury
could not have deduced the weight of the bags without the certificate. The defendant’s convictions are vacated.
Issue #2: Did the
judge err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress? The defendant’s motions to suppress were not
denied in error. Police had probable
cause based on the arresting officer’s experience and the defendant’s actions prior
to the arrest. In addition, there is no
additional evidence to suggest the defendant’s post-arrest statements were not
voluntary.
Judgment: Convictions
vacated, verdicts set aside, and the case remanded for a new trial.
Written 7/17/13
