Welcome to YLOAN.COM
yloan.com » Medical » Massachusetts Criminal Drug Offense Cocaine Warrant Lawyers Attorneys
Health Medical Acne Aerobics-Cardio Alternative Anti-Aging Build-Muscle Chronic-Illness Dental-Care Depression Diabetes Disability Exercise Eye-Care Fitness-Equipment Hair-Loss Medicine Meditation Nutrition Obesity Polution Quit-Smoking Sidha Supplements Yeast Infection H1N1 Swine Flu SARS herpes therapy panic surgeon hurts teeth remedies eliminate chiropractic arthritis ingredients syndrome binding anxiety surgery medication psychic dental reflux doctor relief premature emotional stress disorder implants wrinkles vision infection aging liposuction seattle stunning sweating hair treatment tinnitus

Massachusetts Criminal Drug Offense Cocaine Warrant Lawyers Attorneys

COMMONWEALTH vs

COMMONWEALTH vs. MARIO M. PEREZ.

APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

November 6, 2009, Argued

March 5, 2010, Decided


On February 23, 2001, Brockton and State police executed a search warrant for the first-floor apartment of a two-family dwelling that had been under surveillance for a few weeks. In anticipation of executing the warrant, several police officers parked across the street from the house; they saw the defendant and a woman park in front of the house and then walk in the front entrance.

About ten minutes later, the defendant came through a door on the driveway side of the house, went down the stairs, moved to one side, and bent over. A fence precluded the police from further view of the defendant. Shortly thereafter, the defendant saw the police and fled into the house, throwing something. The order to execute the warrant was given, and the police entered the house. They found the defendant in a bedroom stuffing objects in his mouth, attempting to swallow them. Turning their attention to the outside area where the defendant had been seen, police discovered a Marlboro cigarette box about a dozen feet from the house which appeared to be the object that had been thrown. It contained nine packets of what appeared to be cocaine. Noticing freshly disturbed earth and a dirt-covered spoon in a snow-covered area next to the house, the officers began digging in the soft earth, uncovering foil-covered plastic bags thought to be cocaine.

Issue:

Whether the motion judge erroneously concluded that the police properly seized the packages of suspected cocaine they found after digging in the area of freshly disturbed earth near the side entrance to the house because that search exceeded the scope of the search warrant?

Whether the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the introduction of drug analysis certificates without the testimony of the analysts, or an opportunity to cross-examine them?

Observation and Holding:

There was ample evidence of constructive possession through the defendant's knowledge of the drugs' presence and his ability and intention to exercise control of the drugs. The defendant's connection with the house had been observed through surveillance, and on the day of the search, he was seen entering the house, then emerging from the side door, and upon seeing the police, he threw a cigarette box containing nine bags of suspected cocaine, and fled into the house. A large number of packets of suspected cocaine later were found buried outside only a few feet from the steps to the side door. When police encountered the defendant in the house, he was observed stuffing packets of suspected cocaine in his mouth, attempting to swallow them. The large quantity of bags of suspected cocaine, packaged in sizes commonly sold on the street, together with items known to be "traditional accoutrements of the illegal drug trade," were sufficient evidence of intent to distribute.

The Commonwealth bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the charged crime of distribution of cocaine, particularly whether the substances were cocaine and their weight. No independent evidence that the substance was cocaine or as to the weight of the substance was offered. The jury was instructed that the certificates were prima facie evidence, but was not instructed that the certificates did not have to be accepted. In the circumstances of this case, the evidence independent of the certificates was inadequate to avoid a conclusion that there was a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.


Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Massachusetts Criminal Drug Offense Cocaine Warrant Lawyers Attorneys

By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah
Massachusetts Drug Offense Conviction Heroin Confrontation Clause Grounds Lawyers Attorneys Drug Guide For Acne Treatment Power symbol - ENT Medicals Disposables - Nose Rinsing Device Evonik Medical Resin For Reverse Accessories Supplier "status" The Medical Transcriptionist Boom Internal Medicine Physicians Worried About The Future Cold and Cough Medicines Your Comprehensive Guide To Hiring a Medical Negligence Lawyer NN within the FLD of Medical Nursing An Executive Drug Rehab Program That Takes Proper Care Of Psychological Well Being Of Every Exec? Dentist Traces Dental Problems to Medicines Ayurveda – The science of medicines and medical healing Fundamental Patterns of Traditional Chinese Medicine
print
www.yloan.com guest:  register | login | search IP(18.116.239.148) Georgia / Atlanta Processed in 0.010154 second(s), 7 queries , Gzip enabled , discuz 5.5 through PHP 8.3.9 , debug code: 30 , 4931, 92,
Massachusetts Criminal Drug Offense Cocaine Warrant Lawyers Attorneys Atlanta