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.

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.