95 N.E.3d 285
Mass. App. Ct.2018Background
- In Jan 2015 police executed a warrant at Proia's apartment and found ~17g heroin on top of kitchen cabinets; Proia was present but not charged then. Police warned her not to associate with Alan Carey (the apparent target).
- On Feb 13, 2015 police executed a second warrant targeting Carey; Carey was found in Proia's bedroom with the couple's infant and told police he had drugs under Proia's dresser.
- Police recovered nine small knotted baggies of heroin under Proia’s dresser, a digital scale and baggies elsewhere in the apartment, and $226; Proia was arrested upon returning home and charged with possession of a class A substance (G. L. c. 94C, § 34).
- At trial Proia moved for a required finding of not guilty at close of all evidence; denied. She was convicted by a jury and postverdict motions for a required finding were denied.
- Key contested issues on appeal: admissibility of testimony about the January search (prior bad act), sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession, prosecutor’s closing remarks about willful blindness, and a judge’s comment during jury empanelment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Proia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of testimony about Jan search | Testimony shows Proia's knowledge of drugs in the apartment (relevant to constructive possession) | Testimony was prior bad-act evidence, prejudicial, not probative | Admission was not reversible error: proffered to show knowledge; limiting instruction given; defendant failed to preserve specific objection |
| Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession | Drugs were found under Proia’s dresser in the bedroom she occupied; links her to location so jury could infer knowledge, dominion, control | Presence of Carey and his statements that the drugs were his creates reasonable doubt; mere association insufficient | Evidence sufficient: particular relationship to dresser/bedroom allowed inference of constructive possession |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument re: willful blindness | Argued defendant was willfully blind and aware; invited jury to disbelieve her testimony | Statements misstated law or suggested willful blindness alone satisfies knowledge element | No reversible error: argument was commentary on credibility and evidence; jury instructions cured any potential misstatement |
| Judge comment during jury selection | Judge's offhand comment did not affect impartiality or taint empanelment | Judge acted as advocate by remarking a juror was "kooky" and pointing out Commonwealth’s peremptories | No miscarriage of justice: single comment insufficient to show judge became prosecution advocate; trial judge has broad discretion in juror matters |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 (2014) (heightened scrutiny and balancing for prior bad-act evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Frongillo, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 677 (2006) (elements of constructive possession: knowledge, dominion, control)
- Commonwealth v. Brzezinski, 405 Mass. 401 (1989) (need for "other incriminating evidence" when contraband found in common area)
- Commonwealth v. Clarke, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 502 (1998) (constructive possession where drugs found in bedroom occupied by defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Boria, 440 Mass. 416 (2003) (presence or association alone insufficient to prove constructive possession)
- Commonwealth v. Farnsworth, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 87 (2010) (particular relationship to area where contraband is found can support possession inference)
- Commonwealth v. Pearce, 427 Mass. 642 (1998) (standard of review for unobjected-to prosecutorial comments)
- Commonwealth v. Meadows, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 534 (1992) (judge's conduct during jury selection and risk of advocacy)