Commonwealth v. Gaston
86 Mass. App. Ct. 568
Mass. App. Ct.2014Background
- Police executed a search warrant at a Dorchester apartment (June 18, 2008); defendant fled, was chased, and apprehended; officers recovered a bag near his flight path containing ten individually packaged rocks of crack cocaine and the headphones he had been wearing.
- In a bedroom, officers found a black backpack containing two handguns (a Taurus 9mm and a loaded High Point .380), a single loose round, mail addressed to the defendant, large male clothing, a scale with residue, a box of plastic sandwich bags, mirror, and razor blade.
- A second bedroom contained mail and ID for the lessee, $151, a spent shell casing, and a .380 round; the lessee returned during the raid and was not charged.
- Laboratory analysis at the William A. Hinton State Laboratory identified the substance as cocaine; Annie Dookhan was the confirmatory chemist. Her widespread misconduct was publicly revealed after trial.
- Defendant was convicted by jury of (inter alia) possession of a class B substance with intent to distribute (crack), two counts of carrying a firearm without a license, unlawful possession of ammunition, and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm. He moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and prosecutorial nondisclosure regarding Dookhan; the motion was denied and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Gaston’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered evidence / prosecutorial nondisclosure about Annie Dookhan required a new trial on the drug charge | Dookhan was only the confirmatory chemist; primary chemist independently identified cocaine, so disclosure would not have changed result | Dookhan’s pervasive, egregious misconduct (as assistant/confirmatory chemist) is newly discovered and exculpatory; nondisclosure prejudiced the defense | New trial required on the drug conviction: Dookhan’s misconduct would have been a real factor and could have affected the jury’s deliberations |
| Sufficiency of evidence to show intent to distribute (drugs found in bag) | Circumstantial evidence (quantity, individual packaging, scale, box of sandwich bags, flight) supports intent to distribute | Only possession established; not enough to infer distribution intent | Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction for possession with intent to distribute (but conviction vacated because of Dookhan issue) |
| Sufficiency of evidence tying firearms/ammunition in backpack to defendant | Backpack contained mail addressed to defendant, clothing matching his size, and was left behind during his flight; alternatives (another occupant planted items) unsupported | Another occupant (Moore) was in the room where the backpack was found and could have stashed the guns in the backpack | Evidence sufficient to sustain firearms and ammunition convictions; convictions affirmed |
| Whether prosecutorial nondisclosure of Dookhan-related materials required relief on weapons/ammo counts | Dookhan’s role only affected narcotics analysis, not weapons evidence | Dookhan misconduct undermines overall prosecution and required disclosure | No prejudice shown as to weapons/ammo; motion for new trial properly denied on those counts |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Scott, 467 Mass. 336 (2014) (describing Hinton lab protocols and creating conclusive presumption of egregious misconduct when Dookhan served as assistant analyst)
- Commonwealth v. Tucceri, 412 Mass. 401 (1992) (prosecutorial disclosure obligations and materiality standard for newly discovered evidence)
- Ferrara v. United States, 456 F.3d 278 (1st Cir. 2006) (analysis used for prejudice assessment where government agent misconduct implicated)
- Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303 (1986) (standard for newly discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979) (standard for assessing sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
- Commonwealth v. LaPerle, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 424 (1985) (intent to distribute may be proved by circumstantial evidence without expert testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Little, 453 Mass. 766 (2009) (factors supporting intent to distribute)
- Commonwealth v. Sepheus, 468 Mass. 160 (2014) (approach to circumstantial proof of distribution)
- Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 319 (2010) (packaging, quantity and paraphernalia as indicia of distribution)