Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 461 Mass. 431

In 2008, defendant convicted of having a firearm without a license in a motor vehicle, possession of ammunition without a firearm identification card, and possession of marijuana.
A subsequent trial found the defendant guilty on related offender charges; defense appealed on confrontation grounds related to ballistics and drug certificates.
Appeals Court held drug certificates were prejudicial but ballistics certificate was harmless; reversed marijuana conviction and affirmed others.
Defendant appealed to limit review to the ballistics certificate issue and its impact on the firearm conviction.
Ballistics certificate of examination was admitted without confrontation-right safeguards after the Melendez-Diaz decision, which post-dates the trial.
Court analyzes whether the ballistics certificate’s admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given other evidence of operability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
whether admission of the ballistics certificate violated confrontation rights	Barbosa argues the certificate violated Melendez-Diaz	Barbosa contends the error was harmless beyond doubt given other evidence	not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; reversal of firearm conviction
whether the ballistics certificate’s impact on operability evidence was nullified by other proof	Barbosa asserts other evidence shows operability regardless of certificate	Barbosa argues operability proved only via certificate-related testimony	evidence of operability did not independently establish operability without the certificate; error not harmless beyond doubt
whether the firearm was operable independent of the ballistics certificate	Barbosa cites troops’ handling and inspection as independent proof	Barbosa argues such proof is insufficient without the certificate's testimony	inspections and testimony did not render the certificate harmless; reversal warranted

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (confrontation rights require cross-examination of laboratory analysts)
Commonwealth v. Depina, 456 Mass. 238 (2010) (ballistics certificates implicate confrontation; corroborating evidence needed for harmless error)
Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 456 Mass. 350 (2010) (harmlessness standard when evidence is not overwhelming without improper certificate)
Commonwealth v. Muniz, 456 Mass. 166 (2010) (standards for proving a weapon is a firearm; corroborative evidence needed)
Commonwealth v. Loadholt, 456 Mass. 411 (2010) (operability proof and evidence sufficiency in firearm cases)