Commonwealth v. MacDonald
459 Mass. 148
| Mass. | 2011Background
- On October 7, 2006, three plainclothes officers observed the defendant in East Somerville during a narcotics-enforcement operation.
- The defendant paced on the sidewalk, interacted briefly with individuals in a red vehicle and an Oldsmobile, and was later found with cash while marijuana was found in the Oldsmobile in plain view.
- The Commonwealth offered testimony from a nonpercipient expert, Montana, who identified the seized substance as marijuana and described street-level drug transactions.
- Montana testified about marijuana packaging, trafficking methods, and that seeds and twigs in the bags were consistent with marijuana; the bags were valued at $20 each.
- Defendant argued there was no chemical analysis and Melendez-Diaz implications; he did not call an analyst or introduce a certificate of analysis.
- The trial occurred after Melendez-Diaz but the Commonwealth did not introduce a drug-analysis certificate; the analyst was unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of expert identification | Cantres: circumstantial, experienced officer may identify marijuana. | Vasquez: visual identification without corroboration can be unreliable post-Melendez-Diaz. | Sufficient evidence to identify marijuana; Montana qualified and based on objective criteria and experience. |
| Need for cautionary instruction or corroboration after Melendez-Diaz | Cantres: non-testimonial identification without certificate acceptable if expert testimony valid. | Charles/DiGiambattista: require cautionary instruction when no chemical analysis certificate is used. | No additional cautionary instruction required; cross-examination and proper jury instruction suffice. |
| Use of hypothetical questions to expert | Dancy/Grissett: hypotheticals based on evidence may be admissible and helpful. | Hypotheticals risk commenting on guilt if tied to precise acts of defendant. | Hypothetical testimony properly limited and does not express guilt; allowed when grounded in evidence and expert scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cantres, 405 Mass. 238 (Mass. 1989) (expert testimony to identify drugs based on experience admissible)
- Commonwealth v. Dawson, 399 Mass. 465 (Mass. 1987) (on identification of cocaine; circumstantial evidence allowed)
- Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 456 Mass. 350 (Mass. 2010) (visual identification concerns when certificates wrongfully admitted)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (S. Ct. 2009) (confrontation requirements for certificates of drug analysis)
- Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. 423 (Mass. 2004) (jury instruction on expert testimony related to consequences of trial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Charles, 456 Mass. 378 (Mass. 2010) (expert testimony must be based on objective criteria and experience)
- Commonwealth v. Dancy, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 175 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009) (hypotheticals grounded in evidence may be admissible)