The Appeals Court affirmed the conviction. 26 Mass. App. Ct. 218 (1988). At the trial, the Commonwealth had introduced in evidence two certificates of chemical analysis performed by the Department of Public Health which reported that 1,095 plastic bags seized from the defendant's apartment contained 88.02 grams of heroin.
This Massachusetts statute was intended "to simplify proof of chemical analyses performed routinely and accurately by a public agency and 'to reduce court delays and the inconvenience of having busy public servants called as witnesses'" in every case where drug analysis evidence is presented. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 32 Mass.App.Ct. 355, 589 N.E.2d 328, review denied, 412 Mass. 1105, 595 N.E.2d 326 (1992) (quoting Commonwealth v. Claudio, 26 Mass.App.Ct. 218, 220 n. 1, 525 N.E.2d 449 (1988), aff'd, 405 Mass. 481, 541 N.E.2d 993 (1989)). When its requirements are met, the certificate is admissible only as prima facie evidence that carries no particular presumption of validity, and the defendant may rebut if he doubts the certificate's correctness.
This Massachusetts statute was intended "to simplify proof of chemical analyses performed routinely and accurately by a public agency and 'to reduce court delays and the inconvenience of having busy public servants called as witnesses'" in every case where drug analysis evidence is presented. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 355, 589 N.E.2d 328 (1992) (quoting Commonwealth v. Claudio, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 218, 220 n. 1, 525 N.E.2d 449 (1988), aff'd, 405 Mass. 481, 541 N.E.2d 993 (1989)). When its requirements are met, the certificate is admissible only as prima facie evidence that carries no particular presumption of validity, and the defendant may rebut if he doubts the certificate's correctness.
This Massachusetts statute was intended "to simplify proof of chemical analyses performed routinely and accurately by a public agency and 'to reduce court delays and the inconvenience of having busy public servants called as witnesses'" in every case where drug analysis evidence is presented. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 355, 589 N.E.2d 328 (1992) (quoting Commonwealth v. Claudio, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 218, 220 n. 1, 525 N.E.2d 449 (1988), aff'd, 405 Mass. 481, 541 N.E.2d 993 (1989)). When its requirements are met, the certificate is admissible only as prima facie evidence that carries no particular presumption of validity, and the defendant may rebut if he doubts the certificate's correctness.
The other two cases are easily distinguishable on the facts. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 413 Mass. 598, 602 N.E.2d 555, 559 n. 8 (1992); Commonwealth v. Claudio, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 218, 525 N.E.2d 449, 451-52 (1988). Second, respondent attempts to cast Attorney Tacelli's pratfalls as an argument for jury nullification.
The purpose of G.L. c. 111, ยง 13, is to reduce court delays and the inconvenience of having the analyst called as a witness in each case. Commonwealth v. Claudio, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 218, 220 n. 1 (1988), S.C., 405 Mass. 481 (1989), and cases cited. The defendant's expert went to the University of Massachusetts Medical School laboratory on the first day of the trial to weigh the drugs himself.
November 2, 1988Further appellate review granted: Reported below: 26 Mass. App. Ct. 218 (1988).
The court reasoned that a judge's "rel[iance] on a facsimile signature does not detract from the statute's purpose, to simplify proof of chemical analyses performed routinely and accurately by a public agency and 'to reduce court delays and the inconvenience of having busy public servants called as witnesses.'" Id. at 357, quoting from Commonwealth v. Claudio, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 218, 220 n. 1 (1988), S.C., 405 Mass. 481 (1989). See Finnegan, supra at 441 ("It has never been supposed that the statutory rule of construction now under consideration, as to written signatures, had so wide a scope as to set aside the established doctrines of law as to signatures, and to require a signature in the proper handwriting of a person in all cases where a document is to be signed by him; and such a construction should not be given to it, unless that clearly appears to have been the intention of the Legislature").
. . .' Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 703-704 (1975)."Commonwealth v. Claudio, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 218, 220 (1988), S.C., 405 Mass. 481 (1989). Nevertheless, there are circumstances in which "the burden is on the defendant to come forward with evidence of the defense."
The purpose of MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 111, ยง 13, is "to simplify proof of chemical analyses performed routinely and accurately by a public agency and 'to reduce court delays and the inconvenience of having busy public servants called as witnesses.'" Commonwealth v. Johnson, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 355, 589 N.E.2d 328, 330 (1992) (quoting Commonwealth v. Claudio, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 218, 525 N.E.2d 449 n. 1 (1988), aff'd, 405 Mass. 481, 541 N.E.2d 993 (1989)). Neal contends the drug analysis report was inadmissible because the certification, recited at the bottom of the report, does not state "the name of the person from whom the substance . . . was received."