Com. v. Greco

• Decision Date: 22 February 2010
• Docket Number: No. 08-P-289.,08-P-289.
• Citation: 921 N.E.2d 1001,76 Mass. App. Ct. 296
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. David P. GRECO.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

921 N.E.2d 1001

76 Mass. App. Ct. 296

COMMONWEALTH v. David P. GRECO.

No. 08-P-289.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Argued September 16, 2009.

Decided February 22, 2010.

Valerie A. DePalma, Brooklyn, NY, for the defendant.

Stephen C. Hoctor, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Present: DUFFLY, MILLS, & MEADE, JJ.

MILLS, J.

After a jury trial, the defendant, David P. Greco, was convicted of distribution of a class E controlled substance, G.L. c. 94C, § 32D(a), and distribution within a school zone, G.L. c. 94C, § 32J.¹ On appeal, he claims that (1) the certificates of drug analysis were improperly admitted; (2) the judge improperly took judicial notice that Seroquel is the brand name for the generic drug quetiapine; (3) the jury instructions were flawed; (4) the judge should have given a humane practice instruction; and (5) the defendant was improperly sentenced as a subsequent offender.

Background. On September 13, 2006, at 2:56 P.M., in front of a Walgreens pharmacy, two Cambridge police detectives observed the defendant remove pills from a large prescription bottle and hand some of them to another individual, who then gave some money to the defendant. The detectives approached the two men and ordered the individual to whom the pills had been given to release his clenched fist. He refused, a physical struggle ensued, and the detectives recovered four yellow pills from his right hand. The defendant stated that "[h]e gave me ten bucks for the pills." A search of the defendant revealed a ten-dollar bill and a one-dollar bill as well as two prescription pill bottles, one of which was labeled with the defendant's name and the drug name Seroquel²; the bottle was admitted in evidence. It contained eighty-five pills which were also introduced into evidence. Detective Boyle testified that the pills were "yellow tablets" which "have a stamp on them that says `Seroquel 100.'" These facts are uncontested.

In describing the four pills that had been recovered from the individual's clenched fist, Detective Boyle testified that they "are four yellow tablets . . . [and] have the words Seroquel 100 mg stamped on them"; they appeared to be identical to the pills in the bottle. At trial, one certificate of analysis was admitted to identify the pills from the bottle, and a second certificate pertained to the four pills. Both certificates stated that the pills were "QUETIAPINE." The judge allowed the Commonwealth's motion in limine to take judicial notice, based upon the Physicians' Desk Reference, that the brand name Seroquel is the same as the generic drug quetiapine.

Discussion. 1. The drug certificates. The defendant argues that the drug certificates were erroneously admitted because their admission violated his rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and also because they failed to satisfy statutory admissibility requirements. The introduction of the drug certificates was error. See Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009). Although the Commonwealth questions whether the defendant adequately preserved his confrontation claim, we need not resolve the issue of the appropriate standard of review³ because we conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Mendes, 75 Mass.App. Ct. 390, 397, 914 N.E.2d 348 (2009), and cases cited.

"The essential question is whether the error had, or might have had, an effect on the jury and whether the error contributed to or might have contributed to the verdicts." Commonwealth v. Bacigalupo, 455 Mass. 485, 495, 918 N.E.2d 51 (2009), quoting from Commonwealth v. Perrot, 407 Mass. 539, 549, 554 N.E.2d 1205 (1990). Commonwealth v. Tyree, 455 Mass. 676, 700-704, 919 N.E.2d 660 (2010). Some of the factors to consider include: "(1) the relationship between the evidence and the premise of the defense; (2) who introduced the issue at trial; (3) the weight or quantum of evidence of guilt; (4) the frequency of the reference; and (5) the availability or effect of curative instructions." Commonwealth v. Isabelle, 444 Mass. 416, 419, 828 N.E.2d 53 (2005), quoting from Commonwealth v. Mahdi, 388 Mass. 679, 696-697, 448 N.E.2d 704 (1983).

We begin the analysis with the third and, for this case, the most important factor identified in Isabelle and Mahdi: the other evidence of guilt. "Proof that a substance is a particular drug need not be made by chemical analysis[⁴] and may be made by circumstantial evidence." Commonwealth v. Dawson, 399 Mass. 465, 467, 504 N.E.2d 1056 (1987). In this case, there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the pills were quetiapine, a class E controlled substance. First, as discussed infra, the judge properly took judicial notice that the brand name Seroquel is the equivalent of the generic drug quetiapine. Second, most of the pills were discovered in a prescription bottle bearing the defendant's name and the name "Walgreens"; the detectives had observed the transaction in front of a Walgreens store. Third, the pills in the bottle and the four pills recovered from the other individual are identical; each pill is individually stamped with the word "Seroquel," and each matches the pill bottle label, Seroquel.⁵

The defendant's statement to the detectives that the other individual "gave [him] ten bucks for the pills" is further evidence of guilt. See Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 75 Mass.App.Ct. 235, 242, 913 N.E.2d 880 (2009) (admitting to drug dealing is significant circumstantial evidence). All of these inculpatory factors weigh heavily in favor of a finding of harmless error. See id. at 243, 913 N.E.2d 880.

The first factor set forth in Isabelle is the consideration of the premise of the defense. The defendant did not contest the composition of the pills but instead focused almost exclusively on challenging the school zone violation. See ibid. (trial defense that the drugs were only for personal use "supports a finding of harmless error"). However, we do not give this factor much weight because, at the time of trial, Massachusetts law, specifically Commonwealth v. Verde, 444 Mass. 279, 283, 827 N.E.2d 701 (2005), provided that admission of the certificates without an opportunity to cross-examine the examiner did not violate a defendant's constitutional rights. See Commonwealth v. Tyree, supra at 704, 919 N.E.2d 660; Commonwealth v. Hollister, 75 Mass.App.Ct. 729, 732, 916 N.E.2d 768 (2009).

We next consider the frequency of the references to the improperly admitted certificates, factor four in Isabelle. The Commonwealth offered them during its case-in-chief, and Detective Boyle read them into the record. However, neither party subsequently referred to them during the presentation of evidence, and the Commonwealth did not refer to them during closing. In his closing, defense counsel merely asked the jury to inspect them "very closely." Contrast Commonwealth v. Ware, 76 Mass.App.Ct. 53, 57-58, 918 N.E.2d 861 (2009) (prosecutor relied on certificate in closing argument). The jury instructions did not mention the certificates at all. We are confident that the sparse "references to different drug certificates are neutralized by the overwhelming evidence of . . . distribution [of a class E controlled substance] in this case." Rodriguez, supra at 244, 913 N.E.2d 880.⁶

In these circumstances,⁷ it is fair to conclude that there is no "reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction." Id. at 241, 913 N.E.2d 880, quoting from Commonwealth v. Perez, 411 Mass. 249, 260, 581 N.E.2d 1010 (1991).⁸

2. Judicial notice. The Commonwealth was required to prove that the pills labeled Seroquel had the same composition as the generic substance quetiapine, a class E controlled substance. Prior to trial, the Commonwealth filed a motion in limine asking the judge to take judicial notice of this fact based upon the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR). The judge allowed this motion.

"Matters are judicially noticed only when they are indisputably true." Nantucket v. Beinecke, 379 Mass. 345, 352, 398 N.E.2d 458 (1979). Matters of common knowledge may be judicially noticed. Ibid. Additionally, facts which are "a subject of generalized knowledge readily ascertainable from authoritative sources [are] . . . appropriate for judicial notice." Commonwealth v. Green, 408 Mass. 48, 50 n. 2, 556 N.E.2d 387 (1990). In this case, the judge did not err in taking judicial notice of the single and indisputable fact that, based upon the PDR, Seroquel is the brand name for the generic drug quetiapine.⁹ While this is not a matter of common knowledge, it is readily ascertainable from the PDR and is comparable to a judge taking judicial notice that codeine is a derivative of opium, which was approved in Commonwealth v. Green, supra.

This case differs from Commonwealth v. Johnson, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 164, 170, 794 N.E.2d 1214 (2003), where a "pill book" purchased from a CVS pharmacy was not considered an appropriate subject for judicial notice because, unlike a pill book, the PDR is a recognized authority.¹⁰ Additionally, this is not a case where a judge improperly took judicial notice of the symptoms or effects of taking a drug. See Commonwealth v. Hartman, 404 Mass. 306, 313 n. 9, 534 N.E.2d 1170 (1989) (judicial notice not appropriate for "[t]he symptoms of insulin shock"). Instead, the judge simply took judicial notice that Seroquel is the brand name for the generic drug quetiapine. This was an appropriate exercise of judicial notice.¹¹

3. Jury instructions. The defendant claims the judge's instructions with respect to the distribution charge do not define the elements of knowingly and intentionally. Defense counsel did not object to the instructions and thus the error, if any, is reviewed under the familiar principles of the substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice standard. See Commonwealth v....