961 N.E.2d 113
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant was convicted of trafficking in oxycodone, possession with intent to distribute oxycodone, and lesser offenses of hydrocodone and marijuana; convictions on oxycodone-related counts reversed on appeal.
- Detectives surveilled the defendant’s home; undercover purchase of Percocet occurred Oct. 5, 2005, involving an informant and a detective.
- On Oct. 6, 2005, undercover officer Morrissey arranged another purchase; pills were recovered from the defendant’s car and home; marked money used in the purchase.
- A warrant led to seizure of numerous oxycodone and hydrocodone pills and marijuana; multiple drug paraphernalia items were found in the residence.
- Morrissey weighed oxycodone on a police scale during trial; no independent foundation established for scale accuracy.
- During trial, the defense sought to present entrapment evidence showing coercion by an informant, Dukakis, and the informant’s relationship to Morrissey; several related questions were excluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of entrapment-related evidence was reversible error | Commonwealth contends exclusion of informant relationship evidence did not impede trial | Fecteau asserts exclusion prevented entrapment defense development | Abuse of discretion; reversal required for entrapment evidentiary gap |
| Whether the trial judge should have instructed on entrapment | Commonwealth argues no entitlement to entrapment instruction given evidence | Fecteau contends entrapment theory warranted instruction based on inducement/coercion | Remanded for potential entrapment instruction on retrial |
| Whether the drug weights were admissible without proper calibration | Commonwealth relied on Morrissey’s measurements for weight | Fecteau asserts scale accuracy was not established; measurements unreliable | Weights inadmissible without calibration foundation; remand for retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Shuman, 391 Mass. 345 (Mass. 1984) (defines entrapment and inducement concepts)
- Commonwealth v. Madigan, 449 Mass. 702 (Mass. 2007) (low threshold to raise entrapment; government inducement requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Penta, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 36 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992) (agency/inducement framework for entrapment)
- Commonwealth v. Tracey, 416 Mass. 528 (Mass. 1993) (inducement standards; outlines coercive conduct factors)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 361 Mass. 644 (Mass. 1972) (threshold for entrapment; need for government inducement evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Rancourt, 399 Mass. 269 (Mass. 1987) (agency relationship requirements for entrapment)
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 304 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992) (necessity of showing government agent/ informant relationship)
- Commonwealth v. Sylvia, 456 Mass. 182 (Mass. 2010) (trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings; relevance and prejudice balance)
- Commonwealth v. Barbeau, 411 Mass. 782 (Mass. 1992) (calibration/verification of measurement devices (breathalyzer context))
- Commonwealth v. Whitlock, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 320 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009) (foundational requirements for scientific weight evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Torres, 453 Mass. 722 (Mass. 2009) (calibration foundation for measuring devices)
- Commonwealth v. Whynaught, 377 Mass. 14 (Mass. 1979) (calibration concept for measurement devices)
- Commonwealth v. Cochran, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 260 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988) (importance of reliable device foundation)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 35 Mass. App. Ct. 655 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993) (weight testimony admissibility considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Barbeau, 411 Mass. 782 (Mass. 1992) (calibration/verification of measurement devices)