Commonwealth v. Bjork

• Decision Date: 05 March 2014
• Citation: 5 N.E.3d 559,467 Mass. 1006
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Corey BJORK.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

467 Mass. 1006

5 N.E.3d 559

COMMONWEALTH

v.Corey BJORK.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

March 5, 2014.

Vincent J. DeMore, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Chauncey B. Wood, Boston, for the defendant.

Emma A. Andersson & Ezekiel R. Edwards, of New York; Emily A. Cardy & Eric Brandt, Committee for Public Counsel Services; & Matthew R. Segal & Elizabeth A. Lunt, for Committee for Public Counsel Services & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.

RESCRIPT.

This case is one of four in this posture decided today that arise out of the revelation of the alleged wrongdoing of Annie Dookhan, a chemist at the William A. Hinton State Laboratory Institute's forensic drug laboratory (Hinton drug lab) from 2003 to 2012. See Commonwealth v. Scott, 467 Mass. 336, 5 N.E.3d 530 (2014); Commonwealth v. Davila, 467 Mass. 1005, 5 N.E.3d 557 (2014); and Commonwealth v. Torres, 467 Mass. 1007, 5 N.E.3d 560 (2014). The defendant moved to vacate his guilty plea under Mass. R.Crim. P. 30(b), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001). The motion was granted, and the Commonwealth appealed. We granted the Commonwealth's application for direct appellate review. The full extent of the investigation into Dookhan's conduct is set forth in Scott, supra at 338–342, 5 N.E.3d 530, and reveals multiple deliberate breaches of laboratory and testing protocols by Dookhan as well as her falsification of test results for forensic evidence samples in an unknown, and likely unidentifiable, number of drug cases until her June, 2011, reassignment out of the Hinton drug lab.¹

Here, the defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute class A (heroin), class B (“crack” cocaine), and class D (marijuana) controlled substances under G.L. c. 94C, §§ 32 ( a ), 32A ( a ), and 32C ( a ), along with three charges of possession of these substances in a school zone under G.L. c. 94C, § 32J. Like the defendant in Scott, the defendant here entered into a plea agreement with the Commonwealth before the allegations against Dookhan came to light. Dookhan signed all three certificates of drug analysis in the defendant's case on the line labeled “Assistant Analyst.” On the certificate identifying one of the substances as marijuana, she was the sole signing analyst.

For all the reasons set forth in Scott, we vacate the grant of the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea. We remand the case to permit the defendant to take advantage of the conclusive presumption we have set forth in Scott and to allow the trial court judge to consider whether ...