Commonwealth v. Caraballo, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 536

Defendant was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute (subsequent offense) and of the lesser included offense of possession of Suboxone pills.
During a narcotics investigation, detectives surveilled 2616 Main Street and observed the defendant arrive with others and enter the building; those outside appeared drug-dependent.
Detective Bruno testified about street-level drug-dealing patterns and characteristics of drug-dependent individuals based on his training and experience.
A search warrant was executed on June 15, 2009; officers entered the apartment and found the defendant with five bags of heroin on his person and additional heroin, along with other drug-related items, in a woman’s pocketbook and in the apartment.
The apartment contained packaging materials, a drug ledger, a dresser with correspondence to the defendant, and a purse-size safe with over $4,000 in cash.
The defense challenged the detective’s profiling testimony and there were sufficiency challenges to both the heroin and Suboxone possession convictions; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Detective Bruno’s profiling testimony was error	Valuable profiling to prove guilt, improper per se.	Testimony improperly described drug-dependent types and suggested defendant’s guilt.	No reversible error; testimony admissible as explanatory, not conclusory, and not guilt-determinative.
Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent to distribute heroin	Evidence shows constructive possession of the large stash in the pocketbook.	Insufficient evidence of constructive possession of the larger quantity and lack of explicit intent.	Sufficient evidence; jury could infer knowledge, control, and intent from location, similarities, and corroborating items.
Sufficiency of evidence for possession of Suboxone pills	Pills found near defendant’s correspondence support possession.	Proximity alone is insufficient to prove possession.	Sufficient evidence; proximity plus related items supports constructive possession and intent.

Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (Mass. 1979) (redefines sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 452 Mass. 142 (Mass. 2008) (constructive possession and inference doctrine)
Commonwealth v. Roche, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 372 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998) (profiling testimony restrictions; expert reliance on routine characteristics)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 410 Mass. 199 (Mass. 1991) (permissible explanatory testimony by officers with training)
Commonwealth v. Sespedes, 442 Mass. 95 (Mass. 2004) (presence with other incriminating evidence sufficiency context)
Commonwealth v. Rosa, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 495 (Mass. App. Ct. 1984) (constructive possession in shared dwelling cases)