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. R. Amaral

Commonwealth v. Robert Amaral
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
January 6, 2011
Docket No: 09-P-1683

Assault and Battery, Self-Defense, Evidence, Prior Violent Conduct


The Fall River Division of the District Court convicted the defendant of assault and battery following a bench trial.  The defendant appealed, asserting that 1) the trial judge erred in restricting cross-examination regarding the victim's training and experience as a boxer and martial artist to establish that the victim was the first aggressor; and 2) the restitution order entered by the judge violates his Due Process rights because it was based on evidence that failed to comply with G.L. c. 233, sec 78G.  Both issues were affirmed.

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

COMMONWEALTH vs. ANGEL MONTALVO, FEBRUARY 25, 2010, Appeals Court

Sufficiency of evidence, Possession

The defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of constructive possession of cocaine and of heroin. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to establish constructive possession of cocaine, but not of heroin. The court found ample evidence that the defendant knew that there were drugs in the apartment, that he was in close proximity to drugs and packaging materials, and that he had the ability and intent to exercise control over at least some of the cocaine in the apartment. Important factors in finding sufficient evidence included the location of the defendant and the drugs (together in one room, drugs in plain sight near the defendant) as well as the fact that the house in which the defendant and drugs were found was a “hot house” (such that it had “New York style” locks, was heavily barricaded, and there were few indicators of occupancy). The court emphasized that the evidentiary inference to support a conviction need not be inescapable or necessary, but just that the evidentiary record as a whole supports a conclusion of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

While there was sufficient evidence regarding the cocaine conviction, the court did not find the same ample evidence regarding the constructive possession of heroin. The appellate court found that there was no way to infer the defendant’s knowledge of or control over the heroin based on the apparently invisibility of the heroin to the defendant when the police entered the house. The defendant’s conviction of constructive possession therefore was vacated.

Sufficiency of Evidence; Intent to Distribute

The defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of intent to distribute cocaine, and the appellate court agreed, finding insufficient evidence of intent. Because there were none of the common factors used in the assessment of intent to distribute, such as large quantities of drugs, the absence of implements for personal use, and the presence of cash and pagers, the court found that the jury must have used guesswork – and not proper inferences – to convict the defendant. The appellate court accordingly reversed the defendant’s intent to distribute conviction.

Sufficiency of Evidence; Joint Venture

The defendant contended that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of participation in a joint venture to sell drugs, and the appellate court agreed. The court found that there was no evidence that linked the defendant to a common venture with the other individuals arrested in the house. The fact that the defendant was found in the house with other individuals engaging in drug sells was not sufficient and accordingly the court reversed the conviction.

Com v Mattei, SJC, 2/1/10

COMMONWEALTH v. MATTEI, FEBRUARY 1, 2010, SJC

Sufficiency of evidence, Dangerous weapon

The defendant argued on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of home invasion and assault with a dangerous weapon because the duct tape that was used in the attack was not a dangerous weapon. The SJC disagreed. Here the defendant used the duct tape to cover and close the victim’s mouth; there was also evidence that the victim had trouble breathing during the assault. Finding an item to be a dangerous weapon does not require the victim’s death or serious bodily harm - only the apparent ability to injure is necessary.

Admissibility of DNA, Expert testimony

The defendant argued that it was error to admit expert testimony that he could not be excluded as a potential source of DNA found at the crime scene without accompanying testimony explaining the statistical relevance of those non-exclusion results. The SJC agreed. The Court noted that the admissibility of match evidence requires testimony explaining to the jury the likelihood of that match occurring. The same rule should apply in non-exclusion results as well. The DNA evidence is of little value to the jury without giving some context or significance to the results.