Supreme Judicial Court -- January 19, 2012
Procedural History: Defendant appeals from jury convictions in 2006 of distribution of cocaine and drug offense in a school zone, challenging admission of a drug certificate without chemist testimony in violation of defendant’s right of confrontation under Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2532, 2542 (2009). The Appeals Court affirmed convictions and held the admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Holding: Conviction reversed, case remanded for new trial. Commonwealth’s evidence in this case was not so overwhelming as to nullify the effect of the erroneously admitted certificate.
Facts: Undercover detective Robert John Morrissey, Jr. stopped his car near a Brockton bar where a group of men were standing. The defendant approached, made eye contact, and agreed to get “a twenty of rock,” which means twenty dollars of crack cocaine. Defendant left the car and conversed with people in the group. He returned with his hand to his mouth, spit a “piece of white rock” out of his mouth, and handed the “rock” to the detective. Morrissey then gave the defendant twenty dollars.
At the police station, Morrissey “field tested [the substance],” sealed, labeled and secured the bag to be analyzed at the State laboratory. At trial, there was no testimony regarding the result of the field test. Morrissey identified the certificate of analysis from the State laboratory, read the certification to the jury stating the substance was cocaine, and the certificate was admitted in evidence.
Morrissey received three-days of training at the police academy, a three-day street crime seminar, a two-week course with the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency. He also attended an annual three-day seminar by a narcotics task force on Cape Cod. Morrissey had been working undercover for five years, been in law enforcement for eleven years, and had participated in thousands of arrests. He testified that the substance he purchased from the defendant was “crack” cocaine, but did not testify as to having any expertise in identifying cocaine.
Issue: Was admission of the drug certificate harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?
No. The Commonwealth relied primarily on the certificate to prove that the substance was cocaine. Morrissey did not testify as to his expertise in narcotics identification or as to the results of the field test. Given such circumstances, admission of the certificate cannot be said to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Fluellen, 456 Mass. 517, 527 (2010) (where certificate “formed a tainted ‘core’ of evidence from which the rest of Commonwealth’s case radiated,” admission not harmless beyond reasonable doubt). (LP)
