Commonwealth vs. Moises Morales, April 27, 2010
76 Mass. App. Ct. 663
This case returned to the appeals court on remand from the United States Supreme Court after the Court’s ruling in Melendez-Dias. In the previous appeals court case the defendants convictions for possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number, unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and possession of a class A substance (heroin) with intent to distribute, were all affirmed by this court holding that the ballistics and drug analysis certificates were admissible as evidence. The defendant argued in the present case that admission of the ballistics and drug certificate without accompanying testimony from the ballistician and lab analyst who produced them violated his sixth amendment confrontation rights under the United States Constitution. This time, the court reversed three of the defendant’s four convictions.
The defendant was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued on an allegation that the defendant had assaulted his girlfriend. When he was arrested he was handcuffed and patfrisked. The search of the defendant yielded a .40 caliber gun with the serial number scratched off, two magazines containing bullets, a knife, twenty nine bags of white powder, a cell phone, and $375 cash.
Confrontation of Witnesses, Certificates and Evidence, Melendez-Diaz
The court’s discussion on whether or not failure to accompany ballistics and drug certificates with testimony from their respective analysts is a violation of the defendant’s sixth amendment was rather short. The court stated that Melendez-Diaz required that the analyst who produced the document testify or else the defendant’s sixth amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him is violated. After stating that the judge erred in admitting the evidence the court moved on to deciding whether the erroneous admission of the certificates was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Harmless Error Standard
In a case where there was a Federal constitutional error, Federal law governs. The Supreme Court noted that the constitutional error can be found harmless if, “the beneficiary of a constitutional error…proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict attained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 21 (1967). The court also that if there was other “overwhelming evidence” against the defendant, then that evidence may be considered in determining whether the error was harmless.
The appeals court then discussed the harmless error standard in Massachusetts and noted that it essentially mirrors the articulations of the Supreme Court. However the appeals court will also consider the weight of the evidence of guilt and the frequency of reference to the erroneously admitted materials.
The appeals court found that the Commonwealth had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the erroneously admitted evidence did not contribute to the verdict. The court noted that the only direct evidence saying that the white substance was cocaine was the drug certificate and that there really was no other evidence on that charge. Secondly the court noted that for a weapon to be considered a firearm it needs to be within a certain length and must be able to fire one shot. Without the certificate attesting to the functionality of the gun, the two firearms related convictions had to be reversed because there was no admissible evidence that they were in fact functioning firearms. Lastly, the court affirmed the conviction of illegal possession of ammunition, because to be guilty of that in Massachusetts the defendant merely needed to be in possession of bullets that could be fired from any gun, and even without the certificate it was clear that the bullets found on the defendant were ammunition.
The court lastly noted that the Commonwealth’s argument that the defendant failed to object to the constitutionality of admitting these certificates thus failing to preserve the issue was without merit. Even though the court found that the defendant did object to the certificates with substantial specificity to preserve the issue it noted that in Commonwealth vs. Vasquez, 456 Mass. 350, 356-259 (2010), the SJC held that even unpreserved errors based on Melendez-Dias are entitled to review pursuant to the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
