Commonwealth v. King, 461 Mass. 354

Defendant was convicted in 2008 at a bifurcated, jury-waived trial of unlawful distribution of cocaine and as a subsequent offense under G. L. c. 94C, § 32A (c)-(d).
Evidence included a certificate of drug analysis identifying the substance as cocaine and a police field test by a detective; no chemical-analyst testimony was admitted.
On appeal, defendant asserted confrontation-right violation under Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts for the certificate’s admission without analyst testimony.
Appeals Court affirmed, holding the field test and other circumstances rendered the certificate's admission harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review and reversed, concluding the error was not harmless beyond reasonable doubt because other properly admitted evidence did not sufficiently overcome the taint of the certificate.
Trial record showed Morrissey testified only to general law-enforcement experience and a positive field test; no expert testimony or detailed field-test methodology was presented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the certificate admissible under confrontation clause?	King (Commonwealth) contends evidence was harmless beyond doubt.	King contends Melendez-Diaz violation requires reversal unless harmless beyond reasonable doubt.	Not harmless beyond reasonable doubt; reversal required.
Did circumstantial evidence compensate for the tainted certificate?	Commonwealth argues Morrissey’s testimony, field test, and defendant’s conduct were overpowering.	Morrissey’s testimony lacked expertise; no reliable field-test details; defense identical to mistaken-identity theory.	No; the evidence was not sufficiently overpowering to nullify the certificate’s prejudice.
Was Morrissey an expert whose testimony could substitute for the missing analyst?	Commonwealth treated officer as expert identifying cocaine.	Officer lacked training/details; cannot substitute for laboratory testimony.	Not established as an expert identifying cocaine; insufficient to cure error.

Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 456 Mass. 350 (Mass. 2010) (harmlessness standard for tainted certificates; powers of circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Fluellen, 456 Mass. 517 (Mass. 2010) (certificate of drug analysis not harmless beyond reasonable doubt)
Commonwealth v. Connolly, 454 Mass. 808 (Mass. 2009) (distinguishes when certificate harmless depending on corroborating evidence)
Commonwealth v. Tyree, 455 Mass. 676 (Mass. 2010) (harmlessness factors; weight of corroborating evidence)
Commonwealth v. Perrot, 407 Mass. 539 (Mass. 1990) (standard for evaluating whether error affected findings)
Commonwealth v. Sinnott, 399 Mass. 863 (Mass. 1987) (high bar for harmlessness in serious evidentiary errors)
Commonwealth v. Nelson, 460 Mass. 564 (Mass. 2011) (contrast between sufficiency of evidence and harmlessness of certificate)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (S. Ct. 2009) (confrontation clause requires live testimony or equivalent for certificates)