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.

Com. v. Miller

Commonwealth v. Miller
Massachusetts Appeals Court
March 2, 2011
78 Mass.App.Ct. 860

Search and Seizure, Motor vehicle, Operating under the influence, Registration, Administrative Law, Regulations

The defendant was arrested after he was stopped per a Registry of Motor Vehicle (RMV) regulation that prohibited any portion of a Massachusetts license plate from being blocked by a frame. The defendant was subsequently charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, failure to properly display registration plates, and a safety standard violation for a cracked windshield. The District Court judge granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence finding that the regulation upon which the trooper based his stop of the defendant exceeded the authority of the enabling statute. After a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court granted the Commonwealth’s motion for interlocutory appeal, the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

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.

Com v. Banville, 8/13/10

Commonwealth v. Christopher Banville, August 13, 2010 
457 Mass. 530

Search and Seizure, Search Warrant Conflict of Laws, Expert Witness, Prior Convictions

The defendant was found guilty of first degree murder under theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity and cruelty, as well as larceny of a motor vehicle.  The defendant appealed his convictions claiming: 1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence gained from buccal and genital swabs taken from the defendant pursuant to a Maryland search warrant, 2) Expert testimony was hearsay and inadmissible, and 3) that the judge erred by allowing the prosecutor to use evidence of the defendant’s prior criminal convictions to show a propensity to commit crime.  The SJC affirmed the defendant’s conviction and declined to reduce the degree of guilt.

Com v. Sliech-Brodeur, 7/19/10

Commonwealth v. Joann Sliech-Brodeur, July 19, 2010

457 Mass. 300

Plain View, Search and Seizure, Discovery Orders and Mass. R. Crim. P. 14(b)(2), Jury Instructions, Daubert-Lanigan Hearing, Evidentiary Rulings

The defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree of her husband on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty.  The defendant appealed her conviction by challenging a denial of her motion to suppress evidence, the scope of discovery orders granted on motion to the commonwealth concerning her defense of lack of criminal responsibility, and a number of rulings by the trial judge.  The SJC stated that the defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied but that the discovery orders violated Mass. R. Crim. P. 14(b)(2), as appearing in 442 Mass. 1518 (2004).  These discovery orders resulted in prejudice to the defendant, and thus the SJC reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Com v Cabera, Appeals Ct, 2/25/10

COMMONWEALTH v. CABERA, FEBRUARY 25, 2010, APPEALS COURT

Search and seizure, Threshold Police Inquiry, Protective frisk

Boston Police arrested the defendant after a pat frisk revealed he was unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm. The defendant moved to suppress the firearm. After an evidentiary hearing the motion was allowed. The Appeals Court reversed.