Commonwealth v. Abrahams
6 N.E.3d 1095
Mass. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant Robin Abrahams was convicted in 2010 of 1991 burglary with assault and forcible rape of a child after DNA linked him to seminal fluid found on the victim’s bed sheets.
- A State lab sent a sheet cutting for private DNA testing; in 2005 Abrahams was in custody in Essex County on unrelated charges and served a ten-day sentence (Oct 20–29, 2005).
- On Nov. 2, 2005, while still in custody as a pretrial detainee on other charges, a sheriff’s deputy took a fingertip blood sample; that profile matched the sheet evidence via CODIS and led to an indictment.
- The Commonwealth later obtained a court order for a buccal swab; its profile also matched the sheet sample.
- Abrahams moved to suppress the Nov. 2 blood sample and derivative evidence, arguing the collection was not authorized by the DNA statutes (St. 2003, c. 107, § 2 and G. L. c. 22E). The motion was denied and convictions affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether uncodified § 2 authorized taking DNA from a person in custody after a short sentence but before release from custody | Commonwealth: statute requires submission by convicted persons who are "incarcerated on or after" the effective date and before release from custody; collection while in custody is authorized | Abrahams: "incarcerated" means only serving a sentence (not pretrial detainees); his incarceration ended Oct. 29, so Nov. 2 blood draw missed the statutory deadline and was unlawful | Court: statute requires submission before release from "custody," not merely before end of a sentence; Abrahams remained in custody Nov. 2, so collection was authorized and suppression properly denied |
| Whether suppression is required for late DNA collection beyond uncodified § 2 deadline | Commonwealth: even if timing deadline exists, suppression may not be required absent substantial or constitutional violation | Abrahams: late collection substantially violated statutory rights and merits suppression | Court: did not decide broad suppression rule; found suppression unnecessary because collection occurred before release from custody |
| Whether photographic ID was tainted and required reversal | Abrahams: victim’s ID was tainted by disclosure about family links to known CODIS matches | Commonwealth: other identity evidence was overwhelming | Court: any photographic-ID error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming identity evidence |
| Whether use of term "rape kit" required a new trial | Abrahams: phrase potentially prejudicial | Commonwealth: curative instruction cured any potential prejudice | Court: curative instructions were adequate; no substantial risk of miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Department of Correction, 429 Mass. 736 (1999) (construed "incarcerated on the effective date" as "on or after" the effective date)
- Commonwealth v. Donohue, 452 Mass. 256 (2008) (discusses use of "incarceration" in contexts limited to persons committed after conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Gillis, 448 Mass. 354 (2007) (treats "incarceration" in relation to post-conviction confinement)
- Commonwealth v. Grimshaw, 413 Mass. 73 (1992) (suppression of evidence for statutory violations requires substantial or constitutional violation)
- Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 456 Mass. 350 (2010) (harmless-error standard for federal constitutional errors)
- Commonwealth v. Beaudry, 445 Mass. 577 (2005) (curative instructions can cure evidentiary error when defendant does not take exception)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (federal constitutional error is harmless only if harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)