Commonwealth v. McCollum
Massachusetts Appeals Court
April 14, 2011
79 Mass. App. Ct. 239
Firearms, Controlled Substances, Confrontation of witnesses, Motion to suppress, Warrant, Affidavit, Certificates of analysis, Search and Seizure, Protective sweep.
The defendant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine, possession of a firearm, and possession of ammunition without a firearms identification (FID) card. The Appeals Court reversed the defendant’s conviction for possession of cocaine, finding that the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to show that the defendant constructively possessed the cocaine. The Appeals Court also reversed the defendant’s conviction for possession of a firearm because of the Melendez-Diaz error in admitting the certificate of analysis into evidence. The Appeals Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for possession of ammunition without an FID card, finding that there was sufficient evidence for the conviction and there was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt in the admission of the certificate of analysis for the ammunition into evidence. Lastly, the Court rejected several of the other errors the defendant claimed.
Facts
On September 4, 2003, Boston police officers were engaged in surveillance of a stolen car when they observed Steven Williams enter the vehicle. The officers recognized Williams and knew that he had a previous criminal record and outstanding warrants for his arrest. When the officers tried to block Williams in with their police cars, Williams rammed one of the police cars with the stolen vehicle and escaped from the vehicle on foot. The officers observed Williams toss objects before running into an apartment building. The police later identified the objects as plastic bags containing crack cocaine.
After waiting for backup and a representative from the building’s management to arrive, the officers began a search of the apartment building. With consent, the officers searched several apartments for Williams. The officers proceeded to go to apartment 12; they knocked on the door with no answer. The representative from the building’s management opened the door to apartment 12 with a key. When the officers entered, they observed Williams, the defendant, and a young girl later identified as the defendant’s daughter sitting on a bed in a bedroom within the apartment. The officers arrested Williams. The officers later verified that the girl’s mother rented the apartment.
Upon conducting a protective sweep of the home, the officers found an empty holster in the hallway closet and asked the defendant if there was a gun in the apartment. The defendant replied that there was a gun. The officers gave the defendant his Miranda warnings and proceeded to ask him where the gun was located. The defendant responded that it was in a grocery bag in the same closet where the officers found the holster. The officers retrieved a .44 caliber gun and six .44 caliber rounds of ammunition from the bag.
Using all of this information, the officers obtained a search warrant for the apartment. During the search of the apartment, the officers found seven bags of cocaine in a bedroom closet, one bag of crack cocaine under the bed where the police originally observed Williams and the defendant, and one bag of marijuana on the top of the refrigerator.
The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which the trial court denied. The jury convicted the defendant of possession of cocaine, possession of a firearm, and possession of ammunition without an FID card.
The Sufficiency of the Evidence
The defendant argued that the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence for any of the convictions. Considering whether a fact finder could find all of the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Appeals Court concluded that there was not sufficient evidence for the charge of possession of cocaine; however, there was sufficient evidence for the possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition convictions.
Unlike the firearm and the ammunition, the Court noted that the Commonwealth did not present any evidence showing that defendant knew about the cocaine the police found. The Commonwealth also did not present any evidence that the defendant stored belongings in or accessed the locations where the police found cocaine. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence to find that the defendant had constructive possession of the cocaine and the Appeals Court reversed the defendant’s conviction for possession of cocaine.
The Confrontation Clause
The defendant also challenged the admission of the certificates of analysis for the ammunition, the gun, and the cocaine. Because there was no objection at trial to the admission of the certificates, the Appeals Court reviewed the admission of the certificates to determine if their admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also considered whether the other evidence that the trial court correctly admitted presented overwhelming proof that could nullify the error of the admission of the certificates. Consequently, the Court concluded that the admission of the certificate of analysis for the ammunition was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, while the certificate of analysis for the firearm was not.
The Commonwealth presented one of the certificates of analysis to prove that the firearm was operational as required by G.L.c. 140, § 121 (1998). However, the Commonwealth entered the certificate into evidence in violation of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009). The Commonwealth did not present any other information that showed that the gun was operational, such as spent shell casings, reports of audible gunshots, or the smell of gunpowder. Therefore, the Commonwealth did not present a sufficient amount of evidence, other than the wrongfully admitted certificate of analysis, to prove that the firearm was operational.
Conversely, the Appeals Court concluded that the other evidence the Commonwealth presented outweighed the error of the certificate of analysis for the ammunition. Per G.L.c. 140, § 121 (1998), an experienced police officer can identify ammunition. At trial, after detailing his extensive knowledge with firearms and ammunition, a police officer identified the ammunition. The Commonwealth also entered the ammunition and the firearm found at the apartment into evidence. This evidence made the error of admitting the certificate of analysis harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Motion to Suppress
The defendant also claimed that the trial court wrongfully denied his motion to suppress the evidence found in the evidence. The defendant argued that the trial court should suppress evidence obtained from the apartment because the protective sweep was improper and the affidavit was insufficient. The Appeals Court disagreed with the defendant and found no error. The protective sweep was permissible under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because of Williams’ violent flight from the police and the reasonable belief that the police could find other potentially dangerous persons in an apartment whose occupants allowed Williams to hide from the police. The affidavit supporting the search warrant was also valid because it described the officers’ observation of Williams’ discarding crack cocaine, Williams’ flight into and discovery in the apartment, and the presence of the gun.
Other Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment Claims
The defendant also claimed several other errors occurred involving his Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights. The Appeals Court reviewed the alleged errors to see if there was a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice because the defendant did not raise these issues in his motion to suppress or object to the evidence obtained through the alleged error and concluded that there were no errors. Among the issues the defendant argued, the Court concluded that there was no error in the officers entering the apartment without a warrant because of the circumstances surrounding Williams’ flight. Noting the public safety exception in New York v. Quarles, the Court also found no error in the officers’ questioning of the defendant about the gun holster before giving him Miranda warnings. 467 U.S. 649 (1984). There was also no error in the prosecutor’s questioning of the defendant while he was testifying about his post arrest silence because the prosecutor’s questioning were aimed at learning more about why the defendant omitted certain claims he made at trial from his statements made in his affidavit that accompanied the motion to suppress.
Miscellaneous Claims
The Appeals Court also rejected the defendant’s claims regarding violations of the defendant’s right to not testify, deprivation of a right to present a defense, protection by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and a number of evidentiary issues.
Conclusion
The Appeals Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for possession of ammunition, reversed the defendant’s other convictions, and remanded the case to Superior Court for further proceedings on the possession of a firearm charge.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part
- Prepared by JM
