Commonwealth v. Rosario
90 Mass. App. Ct. 570
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- On May 15, 2014 Lawrence police conducted supervised controlled buys using paid confidential informant William Demers; Demers signaled completed buys by removing his hat.
- Around 1:00 PM Demers completed a buy at 129 Water Street after being approached by Carlos; Demers entered the house, spent ~3–4 minutes with Carlos and Lylibeth, and received a bag later identified as heroin.
- After the buy Demers and his vehicle were searched; Detective Purpora received a plastic bag from Demers and also found two additional plastic bags of brown powder on Carlos; Purpora logged and sealed the items into an evidence envelope labeled with case log number 14-003794 and the defendants’ names.
- Forensic analysis by the Massachusetts State Police confirmed the seized samples contained heroin (and cocaine); city engineer testified the house was ~50 feet from the Boys and Girls Club, supporting a school-zone charge.
- Defendants moved in limine to exclude Demers’ in-court identification (denied); they moved for required findings of not guilty after trial; convictions for distribution of heroin and school-zone violation were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of in-court ID | Demers’ court ID reliable because he observed defendants during the buy | In-court ID should be excluded absent pretrial ID procedure per Crayton; suggestive courtroom isolation risks misidentification | Admission proper; Crayton rule prospectively inapplicable and Demers had adequate out-of-court opportunity to observe defendants |
| Application of Crayton standard | Commonwealth: Crayton not retroactive; apply pre-Crayton law | Defendants: Crayton should control and require good reason for in-court ID | Crayton prospective only; pre-Crayton precedent governs; in-court ID admissible unless tainted by impermissibly suggestive out-of-court confrontation |
| Chain of custody / sufficiency of drug evidence | Commonwealth: Purpora’s testimony, labeled envelope, and lab analysis authenticate evidence | Defendants: Discrepancy in evidence submission form (time/place) breaks chain and undermines connection to this buy | Evidence sufficient; minor chain defects go to weight not admissibility; jury could reasonably find defendants distributed and Carlos possessed heroin |
| Admission of map and engineer testimony (school-zone) | Commonwealth: map/engineer testimony probative of distance and properly admitted; defense had cross-examination opportunity | Lylibeth: no pretrial notice of map; admission prejudicial | Admission not reversible error; lack of pretrial notice did not unfairly prejudice defendant given cross-examination and prior notice of school-zone charge |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 (established new prospective standard limiting in-court IDs absent pretrial identification)
- Commonwealth v. Napolitano, 378 Mass. 599 (recognizes inherent suggestiveness of courtroom isolation but allows in-court IDs absent impermissible suggestiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 464 Mass. 855 (in-court ID excluded only if tainted by out-of-court confrontation creating substantial likelihood of misidentification)
- Commonwealth v. Bastaldo, 472 Mass. 16 (addresses retroactivity and application of Crayton)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (standard for reviewing denial of required finding)
- Commonwealth v. LaCorte, 373 Mass. 700 (object authentication principles)
- Commonwealth v. Andrews, 403 Mass. 441 (witness identification of objects can suffice for authentication)
- Commonwealth v. Herring, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 360 (when labels or chain of custody are needed to authenticate evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Viriyahiranpaiboon, 412 Mass. 224 (chain-of-custody defects generally affect weight not admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Molina, 454 Mass. 232 (extensive cross-examination can cure prejudice from late disclosure)
- Commonwealth v. Stote, 433 Mass. 19 (prejudice from delayed disclosure measured by consequences of delay)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (principles on suggestive identification procedures)