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.



Showing posts with label Controlled substances. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Controlled substances. Show all posts

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Com. v. McCollum

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.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Comm. v. MacDonald

Commonwealth v. MacDonald
2011 Mass. LEXIS 150
SJC-10737
March 18, 2011
Supreme Judicial Court

Criminal, Controlled Substances, Sufficiency of Evidence, Expert Opinion, Melendez-Diaz, Lack of Drug Certificates

            A jury convicted the defendant of distributing marijuana and committing a drug offense near a school.  The defendant appealed, arguing that the judge erred in denying his motion for required findings of not guilty because the testimony of the Commonwealth’s expert was inadequate proof that the substance seized was marijuana.  The SJC found that in these specific circumstances, the expert’s testimony regarding the substance at issue was sufficient evidence that it was marijuana.  In addition, the SJC denied defendant’s invitation to require a cautionary jury instruction concerning forensic testing or to limit the Commonwealth’s use of the facts in evidence in forming a hypothetical question for an expert witness.

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Com v. Young

Commonwealth v. Justin L. Young
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
January 6, 2010
Docket No. 09-P-1721

Search and Seizure, Automobile, Arrest, Controlled Substances, Firearms


A judge sitting jury-waived found the defendant guilty of carrying a firearm without a license, possession of ammunition without a firearm identification card, and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm.  The defendant appeals this decision, arguing that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained during a pat frisk taken as a result of his physical response to an exit order by the arresting police officers.  Defendant contends that the exit order leading to the frisk of his person and discovery of the handgun was unlawful because 1) there was no basis for stopping the vehicle initially and 2) the Fourth Amendment and art. 14 of the MA Declaration of Rights forbid the exit order given to him as a passenger in the vehicle.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Com v Melendez-Diaz, Appeals Ct, 2/3/10

COMMONWEALTH v. MELENDEZ-DIAZ, February 3, 2010, Appeals Court

Controlled substances, Evidence, Confrontation of witnesses, Certificate of drug analysis

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appeals Court and remanded the case to consider whether the admission of the drug analysis was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appeals Court agreed with the defendant that the error was not harmless because the analysis provided the only material evidence that the substance was cocaine.

Com v Pimental, Appeals Ct, 2/3/10

COMMONWEALTH v. PIMENTAL, FEBRUARY 3, 2010, APPEALS COURT

Controlled substances, Evidence, Confrontation of witnesses, Certificate of drug analysis

Admission of drug analysis certificates violated the defendant’s confrontation rights at trial. The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the certificates provided significant evidence of the nature of the substance as heroin.