Com. v. Szemetum
| Decision Date | 19 December 1975 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Lucy SZEMETUM. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Conrad W. Fisher, Worcester, for defendant.
Leon R. Zitowitz, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before HALE, C.J., and GOODMAN, and GRANT, JJ.
This is an appeal, pursuant to G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A--33G, from a conviction for unlawful distribution of a controlled substance (heroin).
On May 16, 1974, a State police officer working undercover held a conversation with one Miguel Carabello outside a barroom on Green Street in Worcester. Carabello entered the bar and returned with the defendant and a male variously known as Angel Diaz and Tito. The officer testified that he told Tito in the defendant's presence that he wanted to purchase two bags of heroin for $100. Tito then spoke to the defendant, who turned away from the officer, reached into her brassiere, and handed two packets to Tito, who turned them over to the officer. The contents of the packets on later analysis were found to be heroin. The officer paid Tito $100. According to the officer's testimony, when he was handed the packets a second officer working undercover with him said he hoped it was 'good stuff,' and the defendant replied that 'we haven't had any complaints yet.'
A third police officer who observed the transaction from across the street, about twenty-five to thirty yards away, corroborated most of the testimony of the first officer. The third officer stated that he had been assigned to the narcotics unit for six years and that he had been in the area of the transaction hundreds of times. He testified over objection that he had made arrests in that area before and that almost every arrest involved the sale of heroin. He and two other witnesses also testified over objection that they had seen the defendant in that area on several earlier occasions.
The defendant testified in her own behalf. She stated that she had been 'going steady' with Tito and had been dating him for three or four months prior to the transaction. She stated that she did not know the contents of the packets and had no intention of distributing heroin. When asked over objection about her knowledge of arrest of Tito prior to May 16, 1974, she testified that she was familiar with an arrest on May 13, but did not know the charge, and was not familiar with an arrest on April 26. She testified that she was not aware of any conversations concerning heroin or money in her presence. She denied making the statement attributed to her in the testimony of the first officer.
The assignments of error relied upon in the defendant's brief raise questions concerning (1) the admission of testimony of the conversation with Tito prior to the transaction, (2) the questioning of the defendant as to her knowledge of Tito's prior arrests, and (3) the testimony concerning previous arrests in the area of the transaction and her presence there. We reverse the conviction.
1. The defendant's argument of her first assignment of error consists only of a naked paraphrase of the assignment of error itself. This does not rise to the level of argument, and we treat the assignment as waived. Commonwealth v. Lacasse Mass.App. ---, --- a, 304 N.E.2d 438 (1973).
2. There was no error in the allowance of questions inquiring into the defendant's knowledge of prior arrests of Tito. Evidence of prior criminal activity may be admissible when introduced for relevant purposes. Commonwealth v. Chalifoux, 362 Mass. 811, 815--816 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Key
...time." The defendant argues that such a question manifested an attempt to prove guilt by association. See Commonwealth v. Szemetum, 3 Mass.App. 651, 653, 338 N.E.2d 850 (1975). The defendant also argues that the prosecutor's question with regard to his girl friend's giving birth to an illeg......
-
Com. v. DiSanto
...find (him) guilty by association." See Commonwealth v. Fancy, 349 Mass. 196, 200, 207 N.E.2d 276 (1965); Commonwealth v. Szemetum, 3 Mass.App. 651, 653-654, 338 N.E.2d 850 (1975). The judge expressly cautioned the jury against any such finding. On analysis, Brady's argument dissolves into a......
-
State v. Garza
...of the accused, or, as in this case, of a nondefendant--may be admissible for other purposes. See Commonwealth v. Szemetum, 3 Mass.App. 651, 338 N.E.2d 850 (1975) (evidence that defendant had knowledge of third party's drug dealings admissible where defendant claimed to be unaware of conten......
-
Com. v. LeFave
... ... Here, there were no allegations that other persons were involved in the defendants' scheme to sexually abuse the children and Dunn's testimony was not offered for that purpose. The defendants also rely on Commonwealth v. Szemetum, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 651, 338 N.E.2d 850 (1975), which was concerned with the imputation of knowledge, or criminal intent, by association with unrelated arrests. The factual similarities between Szemetum and the present case and, hence, its precedential value, are tenuous at best. Dunn's testimony was ... ...