Commonwealth v. Paine
86 Mass. App. Ct. 432
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Paige Paine convicted of two counts of possession of a class E substance; pills found in purse in a pill bottle labeled Oxycontin; pills analyzed by state lab; chemist Brown testified identifying tablets by reference to Micromedex; drug certificates stated tablets were consistent with class E but lacked chemical analysis; Commonwealth moved to admit certificates as evidence; trial court allowed evidence but ultimately conviction challenged on sufficiency of drug identity proof.
- State trooper found three pills in purse after stopping vehicle at rest area; one pill bottle described as Oxycontin; tablets seized and sent to lab for analysis.
- Chemist Brown testified that yellow tablets matched cyclobenzaprine and white tablets matched quetiapine based on markings, color, and database references; certificates indicated consistency with class E substances.
- Commonwealth acknowledged later Inspector General report criticizing reliance on visual identification for class E drugs; no chemical confirmation presented at trial.
- Trial court denied defense challenges; jury convicted Paine, leading to appellate appeal seeking reversal for insufficient proof of drug identity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there sufficient proof the tablets were cyclobenzaprine and quetiapine? | Paine argues sight-based identification inadequate. | Commonwealth contends circumstantial evidence plus certificates suffice. | Insufficient without chemical analysis; reversed. |
| Do drug certificates alone prove composition of the drugs? | Certificates are prima facie evidence of composition. | Certificates should sustain proof as to composition. | Visual-based certificates insufficient; not cure. |
| Is combined evidence (visual ID + certificates + circumstantial clues) enough to prove identity? | Circumstantial evidence plus expert identification should be enough. | Lacked independent corroboration of authenticity. | Not enough; requires chemical analysis or stronger corroboration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. MacDonald, 459 Mass. 148 (2011) (identity of a drug may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 456 Mass. 350 (2010) (drug identity as an element may be proven circumstantially)
- Commonwealth v. Dawson, 399 Mass. 465 (1987) (circumstantial proof may suffice without chemical analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Greco, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 296 (2010) (affirmed conviction despite erroneous drug certificates where other evidence supported identity)
- Commonwealth v. Alisha A., 56 Mass. App. Ct. 311 (2002) (appearance evidence plus circumstantial proof of authenticity)
- Commonwealth v. Nelson, 460 Mass. 564 (2011) (circumstantial evidence insufficient to cure error in drug certificate)