Posts tagged "1113814"

Commonwealth v. Gaston (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-138-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   12-P-1215                                       Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  JUSTIN C. GASTON. No. 12-P-1215. Suffolk.     May 7, 2014. – October 31, 2014.   Present:  Cypher, Kafker, & Hanlon, JJ.     Controlled Substances.  Firearms.  Constitutional Law, Conduct of government agents.  Due Process of Law, Disclosure of evidence, Conduct of prosecutor.  Practice, Criminal, New trial, Disclosure of evidence, Conduct of government agents, Conduct of prosecutor.  Evidence, Disclosure of evidence, Firearm, Certificate of drug analysis.     Complaints received and sworn to in the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on June 25 and July 3, 2008.   After transfer to the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department, the cases were tried before Mark H. Summerville, J., and a motion for a new trial was heard by Eleanor C. Sinnott, J.     William M. White, Jr., for the defendant. Vincent J. DeMore, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.      CYPHER, J.  The defendant, Justin Gaston, appeals from the denial of a motion for new trial and from his convictions by a jury on two counts of carrying a firearm without a license, G. L. c. 269, § 10(a); one count of unlawful possession of ammunition, G. L. c. 269, § 10(h); one count of possession of a class B substance with the intent to distribute (“crack” cocaine), G. L. c. 94C, § 32A; and one count of unlawful possession of a loaded firearm charged in a separate complaint, G. L. c. 269, § 10(n).[1],[2]  The defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the charge of possession with intent to distribute and the firearms and ammunition charges.  The defendant also argues that his motion for new trial, which was based on a claim of newly discovered evidence and prosecutorial nondisclosure regarding problems in the William A. Hinton State Laboratory Institute (Hinton lab) involving chemist Annie Dookhan, should have been allowed.  We conclude that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all of the charges but that the motion for new trial should have been allowed as to the drug charge. Facts.  Police officers in the Boston drug control unit obtained a search warrant for an apartment in a six-family building located in Dorchester.  They executed the warrant on June 18, 2008, and initially tried to gain entry by knocking loudly on the apartment door and announcing […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 31, 2014 at 6:50 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,