Commonwealth v. McGrail
80 Mass. App. Ct. 339
Mass. App. Ct.2011Background
- Motor vehicle crash at 1:45 a.m. on Nov. 18, 2006 in Framingham; defendant driver of a pickup truck that struck a utility pole.
- Defendant smelled of alcohol, was bleeding, and staggered; police recovered him within half a mile of the scene.
- Convicted at a four‑day jury trial of OUI (c.90, §24(l)(a)(1)) and leaving the scene (c.90, §24(2)(o)).
- DNA evidence from multiple car-associated samples matched defendant’s profile; lab supervisor testified on DNA results based on non‑testifying analyst data.
- Charts and numerical data from the non‑testifying analyst’s results were shown to the jury but not admitted into evidence.
- Defense challenged confrontation rights and suppression rulings; the Commonwealth prevailed on appeal regardless of the asserted errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation: does DNA testimony via a lab supervisor violate confrontation rights? | Commonwealth contends expert basis independently admissible. | Katzmann argues violation under Crawford/Melendez‑Diaz/Bullcoming. | No violation; expert opinion based on independent analysis permissible. |
| DNA charts: whether admission of chart data based on non‑testifying analyst violates confrontation rights | Commonwealth concedes data was admitted in error. | Katzmann asserts data should have been excluded. | Erroneous admission did not create substantial miscarriage of justice; limited probative value. |
| Statements to police: were pre‑arrest statements custodial and subject to Miranda? | Statements were voluntary and noncustodial. | Miranda warning required if custodial; defendant denied being drunk. | Noncustodial; statements properly admitted. |
| Blood test: was the hospital blood draw an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment/Art. 14? | Testing by physician for diagnosis was a government‑involved search. | Fourth Amendment protection applies; blood test should be suppressed. | No Fourth Amendment/Art. 14 violation; test conducted for medical purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 457 Mass. 773 (2010) (DNA evidence; expert testimony foundations; admissibility of hearsay through right witness)
- Commonwealth v. Greineder, 458 Mass. 207 (2010) (DNA evidence; permissible use of expert opinion based on non‑testifying data)
- Commonwealth v. McCowen, 458 Mass. 461 (2010) (DNA evidence; expert testimony and data foundations)
- Commonwealth v. Avila, 454 Mass. 744 (2009) (Autopsy/report testimony; expert foundations)
- Commonwealth v. Nardi, 452 Mass. 379 (2008) (Hearsay and expert testimony standards; data reliability)
- Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 456 Mass. 350 (2010) (Harms analysis; standard for harmlessness review)