Commonwealth v. Tassone
468 Mass. 391
| Mass. | 2014Background
- Superior Court jury convicted Tassone of unarmed robbery and assault and battery.
- Issue: admissibility of expert opinion linking defendant’s DNA to eyeglasses swab from robbery scene.
- Cellmark performed DNA testing; Cellmark analyst not testifying at trial.
- Roy, a State Police chemist, reviewed Cellmark results but had no direct knowledge of Cellmark procedures.
- Defendant preserved objection; trial court admitted Roy’s opinion without enabling meaningful cross-examination.
- Court vacates convictions and remands for new trial due to prejudicial error in admitting Roy’s DNA opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Roy’s DNA match opinion admissible? | Tassone argues admissibility under Williams. | Tassone argues confrontation rights are violated; cross-exam necessary. | Not admissible under Massachusetts common law. |
| Does lack of lab-affiliate testimony violate confrontation rights? | Roy’s opinion rests on Cellmark data. | No defense evidence from Cellmark available. | Yes, violates confrontation rights. |
| Does Williams control outcome? | Williams permits admission under certain grounds. | Facts here differ; jury trial risks juror confusion. | Williams not controlling; common-law rule prevails. |
| Was error prejudicial? | DNA evidence strengthened identification defenses. | Other strong non-DNA evidence existed. | Prejudicial error; warrants new trial. |
| Should the conviction be affirmed despite error? | Admission of Roy’s opinion was harmless beyond reasonable doubt. | Error influenced jury’s verdict. | Convictions vacated; new trial ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (confrontation and admissibility of distant lab reports; plurality reasoning debated)
- Commonwealth v. Greineder, 464 Mass. 580 (2013) (common-law confrontation protection; cross-examination of DNA data reliability)
- Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 457 Mass. 773 (2010) (reliability of DNA testing; expert familiarity with lab protocols; data underpinning opinion)
- Commonwealth v. Nardi, 452 Mass. 379 (2008) (case on cross-examination of autopsy/DNA data in litigation)
- Commonwealth v. Aviles, 461 Mass. 60 (2011) (preservation of rights after in limine ruling)