Posts tagged "1115616"

Commonwealth v. Rosario (and a companion case) (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-156-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   15-P-752                                        Appeals Court 15-P-753   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  CARLOS ROSARIO (and a companion case[1]).     Nos. 15-P-752 & 15-P-753.   Essex.     May 17, 2016. – October 26, 2016.   Present:  Cypher, Blake, & Henry, JJ.     Controlled Substances.  Practice, Criminal, Identification of defendant in courtroom, Required finding, Disclosure of evidence.  Constitutional Law, Identification.  Due Process of Law, Identification.  Evidence, Identification, Chain of custody, Disclosure of evidence, Cross-examination.  “School Zone” Statute.       Complaints received and sworn to in the Lawrence Division of the District Court Department on May 16, 2014.   The cases were tried before Mark A. Sullivan, J.     Daniel K. Sherwood for Carlos Rosario. Stephen E. Meltzer for Lylibeth Rosario. Quentin Weld, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     CYPHER, J.  In this consolidated appeal, the defendants, Carlos Rosario and Lylibeth Rosario, appeal from their convictions for distribution of heroin in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32(a), and a drug violation near a school or park in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32J.  In addition, Carlos[2] was charged with possession of heroin in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 34.  The defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude any in-court identification of the defendants, which was denied.  They argue that the trial judge committed error by admitting the confidential informant’s in-court identification in the absence of any pretrial identification procedure.  They also argue that the chain of custody was inadequate to connect the drug evidence presented at trial to this case and, therefore, the evidence was insufficient to prove the drug charges beyond a reasonable doubt.  Lylibeth also argues that she was not given pretrial notice of a map offered by the Commonwealth and admitted in evidence that supported the school zone charge.  We affirm both defendants’ convictions. Background.  On May 15, 2014, the Lawrence police department’s drug enforcement unit (unit) was conducting supervised controlled buys with the assistance of a paid confidential informant named William Demers.  Detective Carmen Purpora searched Demers and the female who accompanied him for money and contraband before each controlled buy and then gave Demers marked currency to complete the drug transactions.  Detective Purpora and Demers agreed that Demers would take off his hat and place it by his side to signal that a drug transaction had taken place. That morning, Demers and the unit […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 26, 2016 at 3:01 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,