Opinion
11-P-1120
03-26-2012
COMMONWEALTH v. LUIS MELENDEZ.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant appeals from his convictions of trafficking in cocaine and doing so in a school zone. The Commonwealth concedes error by virtue of the admission of drug analysis certificates. We reverse.
Background. On January 27, 2006, a Bristol County grand jury indicted the defendant charging him with trafficking in more than one hundred grams of cocaine and doing so in a school zone. On November 13, 2007, the defendant was tried, jury waived. He was convicted of both offenses and sentenced to ten years to ten years and a day in State prison on the trafficking count and two years to the Bristol County house of correction to be served on and after the State prison sentence. At trial, the Commonwealth introduced several certificates of analysis as to the weight and composition of powder found at the defendant's residence. Trial counsel objected to the introduction of the certificates, though not on the basis that the certificates violated the defendant's right to confront witnesses against him. The Commonwealth concedes that the admission of the certificates was error.
Discussion. The admission of the drug certificates in this case occurred after the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Verde, 444 Mass. 279 (2005), and before the United States Supreme Court's decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009). Therefore, any objection on the grounds that the certificates would have violated the defendant's right to confront witnesses against him would have been fruitless. In such instances the standard of review is whether the record established beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict. Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 456 Mass. 350 (2010). Although several witnesses referred to the powder found in the defendant's home as cocaine, and despite the fact that the defendant told the officers that there was cocaine in his house, we are not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the erroneously admitted certificates of drug analysis did not contribute to the verdict. Accordingly, we reverse the defendant's convictions and remand the case for a new trial.
Judgments reversed, findings set aside, and the case is remanded for new trial.
By the Court (Vuono, Smith & Carhart, JJ.),