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. Velazquez

Commonwealth v. Velazquez
Massachusetts Appeals Court
January 26, 2011
Docket No. 08-P-1042

Rape, Evidence, First complaint, Expert opinion, Witness, Expert

The defendant was convicted of four counts of forcible rape of a child.  On appeal, the defendant challenged whether the errors at trial, including errors concerning the first complaint doctrine to which the Commonwealth conceded, required a new trial.  The Appeals Court reversed the defendant’s convictions and ordered a new trial.

Com. v. Roderiques

Commonwealth v. Roderiques
Massachusetts Appeals Court
January 5, 2011
78 Mass. App. Ct. 515

Assault and Battery, Wanton or Reckless Conduct, Reckless Endangerment of a Child, Lesser included offense, Request for jury instructions, Expert Opinion

A grand jury issued two indictments against the defendant –assault and battery upon a child under fourteen years of age causing substantial bodily injury and wantonly and recklessly permitting an assault and battery upon a child that caused the child substantial bodily injury.  Per the defendant’s request, the trial judge gave an instruction on reckless endangerment of a child as a lesser included offense of second charge.  The jury found the defendant guilty of reckless endangerment of a child.  The defendant filed a motion to vacate the conviction, which was denied.  On appeal, the defendant argued that reckless endangerment is not a lesser included offense and that the Commonwealth’s expert offered an impermissible opinion about an ultimate issue in the case.  The judgment was affirmed.