Opinion
No. 11–P–1386.
2012-07-25
COMMONWEALTH v. Alejandro TORRES.
By the Court (CYPHER, GRASSO & SIKORA, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
A jury convicted the defendant, Alejandro Torres, of multiple drug and firearm charges. The defendant appeals, arguing that the testimony of the three detectives that they believed they had witnessed a narcotics transaction was error. Our review of the testimony convinces us that there was no error because the testimony did not exceed any limitations set forth in Commonwealth v. Tanner, 45 Mass.App.Ct. 576, 580 (1998).
The defendant also argues that the testimony of the Commonwealth's expert percipient witnesses constituted improper profile evidence of a drug distribution, as well as improper opinion that the defendant did not fit the profile of a drug user or addict. Pretermitting the question, we note that the jury did not find the defendant guilty of distribution, but only of possession; thus, to the extent there was any error, it did not prejudice the defendant. Finally, there was no error in the admission of the detective's testimony that the defendant's girlfriend pointed to the defendant's bedroom. The testimony was admissible. See Commonwealth v. Cohen, 412 Mass. 375, 393 (1992) (pointing of witness admissible to establish state of police knowledge). Not only was the testimony admissible, the judge immediately gave the jury a limiting instruction that the testimony was admitted for the purpose of establishing why the police went to a particular bedroom. The instruction was repeated during the final charge. The defendant has not established that either instruction was deficient. There was no error.
Judgments affirmed.