Commonwealth v. Joshua L. King, July 2, 2010
77 Mass. App. Ct. 189
Drug Certificate, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
After a jury-waived trial, defendant was found guilty of distribution of a class B substance (cocaine), G.L. c. 94C, § 32A(c), as a subsequent offense, G.L. c. 94C, § 32A(d). Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting a drug certificate in evidence without live testimony in violation of his constitutional right to confrontation under the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appeals Court affirmed the judgments.
Facts
On January 8, 2005, Detective Morissey was operating undercover while investigating drug dealing. Upon entering a dwelling, the Detective knocked on the door to apartment one. The defendant appeared in the doorway of apartment four, located across the hall. The detective requested two rocks of “crack” cocaine. Defendant produced a clear plastic bag containing a large number of smaller bags containing a substance Detective Morrissey believed to be crack cocaine. The parties completed the transaction and the defendant provided his phone number for future purposes. Upon return to the police department, Detective Morrissey conducted a field test and obtained a positive test for crack cocaine. The defense theory at trial was that Detective Morrissey misidentified the defendant.
Drug certificate
At trial, the Commonwealth introduced a drug certificate to prove that the substance exchanged in the controlled buy was cocaine. In light of Melendiaz-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009), the admission of the drug certificate without testimony from the analyst who performed the test was error. The Appeals Court reviewed this error under the harmless error standard in determining whether this error required conviction reversal.
The Supreme Judicial Court has recognized a positive field test as providing evidence of the nature of a substance sufficient to render the erroneous admission of a drug certificate harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Connolly, 454 Mass. 808, 831 (2009).
Here, the determinative element of the charge of distribution was the sale itself rather than the amount of drugs in the defendant's possession. The drugs were produced in response to a request for crack cocaine and an experienced narcotics officer (Detective Morrissey) testified that he believed the substance to be crack cocaine. The defendant also provided the undercover officer with a telephone number for future transactions, showing his willingness to stand behind the implied representation that he was selling what had been requested.
The positive field test "as to the chemical composition of the substance was so overwhelming" as to nullify any effect of the certificate's admission into evidence. Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 456 Mass. 350, 363 (2010). This and the accompanying evidence allowed the Appeals Court to hold that the erroneous admission of the drug certificate was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Judgment affirmed.
- Prepared by AYK
