Commonwealth v. Cooper
AC 16-P-697
| Mass. App. Ct. | May 25, 2017Background
- Undercover officer Munro arranged and completed a purchase of 32 yellow capsules from defendant Robert Cooper on March 16, 2012; capsules were stamped "G5027."
- Defendant told Munro the pills were "Johnnies" (gabapentin), showed a prescription bottle with his name, described pills as 300 mg quick-release, and cautioned dosing; sale occurred within 300 feet of a private preschool (Bright Horizon Children's Center).
- Pills were submitted to the State Police drug lab; chemist Rebecca Daner, based on appearance and reference markings, opined the capsules contained gabapentin.
- Trial evidence included the preschool’s license from the Department of Early Education and Care; no evidence was presented that the preschool was "accredited."
- Jury convicted Cooper of distribution of a class E substance (G. L. c. 94C, § 32D(a)) and distribution in a school zone (G. L. c. 94C, § 32J); defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that substance was a class E drug | Circumstantial proof (markings, seller’s statements, prescription bottle, dosing info, lab chemist opinion) suffices to prove gabapentin | Commonwealth failed to produce chemical analysis; pills could have been counterfeit | Conviction affirmed — circumstantial evidence + expert opinion sufficient to identify drug |
| Whether a licensed preschool counts as an "accredited private preschool" under § 32J | Licensed preschool should qualify as "accredited" for school-zone enhancement | "Accredited" has distinct legal meaning; licensing is not equivalent without proof | Conviction reversed on school-zone charge — licensure alone insufficient to prove accreditation |
| Admissibility of chemist’s testimony and certificate | Chemist was qualified; visual/marking-based opinion admissible | Late motion to exclude; sought to challenge admission of expert and certificate | No abuse of discretion; motion untimely and testimony properly admitted |
| Ineffective assistance claim re: failure to timely challenge chemist | N/A (claim by defendant) | Even if counsel did not object, objection would have failed — no prejudice | Claim rejected — no basis for ineffective assistance because challenge would not have succeeded |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Paine, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 432 (proof must show substance is particular drug but can be circumstantial)
- Commonwealth v. MacDonald, 459 Mass. 148 (criminal narcotics offenses require proof substance is particular drug)
- Commonwealth v. Dawson, 399 Mass. 465 (visual inspection plus circumstantial evidence may suffice)
- Commonwealth v. Alisha A., 56 Mass. App. Ct. 311 (pharmaceutical identification by markings and corroborating facts upheld)
- Commonwealth v. Greco, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 296 (pill markings plus contextual evidence supported conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 323 (construction of § 32J re: public vs private preschool language)
- Commonwealth v. Williamson, 462 Mass. 676 (principle of lenity applies in construing criminal statutes)