subject: Massachusetts Criminal Offense Possession Marijuana Drug Confrontation Clause Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] COMMONWEALTH vsCOMMONWEALTH vs. CHAD PITTMAN.
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
April 6, 2010, Decided
In his brief, the defendant argues that the judge's instructions on the firearms charge were incomplete or confusing. An additional issue, addressed by both counsel in letters pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 16(l), as amended, 386 Mass. 1223, 437 N.E.2d 194 (1982), and at oral argument, is whether a new trial is required because of the admission of a ballistics certificate in violation of the defendant's right of confrontation.
Issues:
Is there any error in Jury instructions in creating a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice?
Here, the judge gave a thorough explanation of constructive possession in connection with the charge of possession of a class D substance. Additionally, he indicated on several occasions that the concept of constructive possession also applied to the other charges against the defendant. The judge again explained the concept of constructive possession, stating: "[I]t is not enough for the Commonwealth just to prove that the defendant was present in the same place as the firearm. The Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant knew that the firearm was there and that the defendant had both the power and the intent to exercise control over the firearm. It is not necessary for the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant had exclusive control over the firearm." Considering the charge in its entirety, we discern no substantial risk that the jury misunderstood what was required to be proved to establish the defendant's possession of the firearm.
Absent a stipulation, the Commonwealth was required to prove that the gun was a working firearm as an essential element of its case. Because there was overwhelming evidence independent of the ballistics certificate that the gun in question was operable, we conclude that a new trial is not required. Without objection from the defendant, the judge admitted, and the jury had before them, the gun (a semiautomatic pistol), the magazine, four live rounds of ammunition, and two additional rounds of ammunition, one of which was a spent round.
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 Offense Possession Marijuana Drug Confrontation Clause Lawyers Attorneys
