Commonwealth v. Ehiabhi, SJC 12259

Commonwealth charged Ehiabhi under §32A (c) and (d) for distribution/possession with intent to distribute cocaine; later sentenced under §32A (a) and (b) despite §32A (c)/(d) convictions.
Statute §32A historically created multiple penalties, with §32A (d) adding harsher minimums for subsequent offenses.
Defendant appealed sentencing and suppression rulings; the Appeals Court was involved; the case was transferred to the Supreme Judicial Court on its own motion.
Motions to suppress evidence from an incident at 2:00 a.m. in Roxbury, involving an inventory/search following an impoundment, were denied.
Defendant was also convicted of assault and battery on a police officer; issues included self-defense instructions and sufficiency for a required finding of not guilty.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §32A (b) and §32A (d) create an ambiguity requiring lenity.	Commonwealth: statute unambiguous, prosecutor may choose subsections.	Ehiabhi: ambiguity necessitates lenity in favor of lesser penalty.	Statute unambiguous; lenity inapplicable.
Whether the prosecutor’s charging under §32A (b) violated separation of powers or equal protection.	Commonwealth: prosecutorial discretion allowed to charge under multiple subsections.	Ehiabhi: such discretion undermines judicial sentencing powers.	Prosecutorial discretion within constitutional bounds; no improper executive usurpation.
Whether the suppression ruling was correct given inventory/search following impoundment.	State's discovery of cocaine admissible as a proper inventory search.	Search pretextual/investigatory; evidence fruit of the poisonous tree.	Inventory search reasonable; impoundment proper; no fruit of the poisonous tree.
Whether the assault and battery on a police officer conviction was properly supported given self-defense instructions.	Self-defense instruction inaccurately shifted burden.	Self-defense instruction incomplete and prejudicial.	Instruction was incomplete but not prejudicial; conviction affirmed.

Batchelder v. United States, 442 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1979) (statutes punishing same conduct under different titles permissible)
Commonwealth v. Chavis, 415 Mass. 703 (Mass. 1993) (statutory scheme and class B penalties analyzed)
Commonwealth v. Richardson, 469 Mass. 248 (Mass. 2014) (rule of lenity not applicable when statute unambiguous)
Cedeno v. Commonwealth, 404 Mass. 190 (Mass. 1989) (coexistence of § 32A (a) and (c) not constitutionally vague)
Commonwealth v. Eddington, 459 Mass. 102 (Mass. 2011) (inventory search standards and impoundment justification)
Commonwealth v. Ellerbe, 430 Mass. 769 (Mass. 2000) (impoundment and inventory scope in police procedure)
Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (Mass. 1979) (standard for reviewing suppression decisions)
Commonwealth v. Gagnon, 387 Mass. 567 (Mass. 1982) (lenity and due process considerations)
Commonwealth v. Mejia, 407 Mass. 493 (Mass. 1990) (burden emphasis in self-defense instructions)