DISCLAIMER:

These summaries of case decisions are intended for informational purposes only. They are not intended to be interpretations of the law, nor do they encompass the subtleties of each case. Therefore, reference to the original text is indispensable.



Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Jaemin Lee's Summary of "Commonwealth v. Davis"

-->Commonwealth v. Davis83 Mass. App. Ct. 484 (2013)

Procedural History
A Superior Court jury convicted defendant of trafficking in 200 grams or more of cocaine in a school zone. The defendant appealed from his convictions and from the denial of his motion for a new trial. On the appeal, the Commonwealth conceded that the admission of certificates of drug analysis violated the defendant’s constitutional confrontation rights.     
Factual summary
The State police arrested the defendant in connection with an undercover investigation. An officer obtained a warrant authorizing the tape recording of oral communications between a Confident Informant and other persons involved in the deal for the purchase. The CI entered a car with the defendant and two men named Alvorado and Bragg. The defendant and Alvarado subsequently produced the cocaine. The CI tasted a small amount of the cocaine and told them that the cocaine was of acceptable quality.  His body wire recorded the entire conversation that took place in the car. The CI exited the car and confirmed to the officer that the substance he had tasted was cocaine. Surveillance officers converged and arrested the defendant, Alvarado and Bragg. Two bricks of a white powdery substance were seized. Each brick of cocaine was covered in cellophane and wrapped with duct tape and wax. Twenty-nine thousand dollars in cash was also seized from the rear cargo area of the car. The officer also seized a ledger that contained names, notations, monetary figures, and references to cocaine in street vernacular from the defendant’s person.
1.      Whether the constitutional error in the admission of the drug certificates that violated the defendant’s confrontation rights was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?
The Appeals Court held that the evidence presented at trial was not so powerful as to nullify the effect of the admission of the drug certificates. The evidence concerning the taste test done by the CI; the seized substance had the appearance and texture of cocaine; the fact that the substance was packaged in a manner consistent with the distribution of individual kilograms of cocaine; the $29,000 in cash; and the defendant’s ledger, were insufficient to find that the constitutional error was harmless beyond reasonable doubt.
2.      Whether the warrant affidavit demonstrated a sufficient nexus to organized crime and, therefore, fell outside the one-party consent exception.
The Appeals Court concluded that there was the requisite connection with organized crime. The Court reasoned that persons involved in the distribution of kilogram and multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine necessarily conduct their activities in concert with others.
3.      Whether the defendant is entitled to a Franks hearing?
A second Superior Court judge afforded the defendant the benefit of an Amral hearing. However, based on the Armal hearing, the judge determined the defendant was not entitled to a Franks hearing because he did not establish that the affidavit made a false statement knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth. The Appeals Court found no abuse of discretion and agreed that the discrepancies did not rise to the level of requiring a Franks hearing.
4.      Whether the second trial was barred by double jeopardy and principles of due process due to errors in the first trial?
The Appeals Court held that the defendant’s double jeopardy claim was waived because he failed to assert it prior to his second trial. As to Trial II, the defendant’s brief has not cited anything of allegedly broader conspiracy evidence which may have been introduced in Trial I, and which was introduced again in Trial II. The Court held that he suffered no resulting prejudice. 

Conclusion
            The Appeals Court held that the constitutional error in the admission of the drug certificates was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Court reversed the defendant’s convictions. There was no error in the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress and the motion for a Franks hearing. The second trial was not barred by double jeopardy and principles of due process.