Commonwealth v. Arzola (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-038-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 SJC-11679 COMMONWEALTH vs. MANUEL ARZOLA. Suffolk. November 6, 2014. – March 4, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Identification. Evidence, Identification, Blood sample, Buccal swab. Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Search and Seizure, Clothing, Expectation of privacy, Warrant, Blood sample, Buccal swab, Probable cause. Probable Cause. Constitutional Law, Privacy, Probable cause, Blood test. Privacy. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on January 11, 2011. Pretrial motions to suppress evidence and to compel the provision of a deoxyribonucleic acid sample by means of a buccal swab were heard by Thomas A. Connors, J., and the cases were tried before Thomas E. Connolly, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Katherine Essington for the defendant. Donna Jalbert Patalano, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Ian Stone, for Committee for Public Counsel Services, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Kirsten V. Mayer, John J. Reynolds III, Sara Perkins Jones, Matthew R. Segal, & Jessie J. Rossman, for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. GANTS, C.J. The defendant was convicted by a Superior Court jury of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault and battery.[1] The defendant appealed, and we transferred the case here on our own motion. On appeal, the defendant contends that the motion judge erred in denying a motion to suppress the victim’s out-of-court eyewitness identification of the defendant, where the victim had told the police that the assailant wore a gray shirt and the defendant was the only person shown wearing a gray shirt in the photographic array. The defendant also argues that deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence identifying the victim as the source of blood found on the defendant’s shirt should have been suppressed, because the DNA analysis of the bloodstain constituted a search that could only be conducted lawfully with a warrant supported by probable cause, and no warrant had been obtained. We find no error and affirm the defendant’s convictions.[2] Background. In the early morning of August 23, 2010, the victim, Mauricio Arevalo, was walking to his home in Chelsea when a man seated on a bench asked him for money and cigarettes. The victim continued walking for another two or three […]