Commonwealth v. Doty

• Citation: 36 N.E.3d 604,88 Mass.App.Ct. 195
• Decision Date: 03 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–P–1373.,14–P–1373.
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Pamela DOTY.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

88 Mass.App.Ct. 195

36 N.E.3d 604

COMMONWEALTH

v.Pamela DOTY.

No. 14–P–1373.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Argued June 9, 2015.

Decided Sept. 3, 2015.

Edward Crane, Cambridge, for the defendant.

Kerry A. Collins, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Present: SULLIVAN, MALDONADO, & MASSING, JJ.

Opinion

SULLIVAN, J.

After a jury trial, Pamela Doty was convicted of conspiring to distribute cocaine in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, see G.L. c. 94C, § 40

, and failing to identify herself while operating a motor vehicle. See G.L. c. 90, § 25, as amended through St. 1989, c. 341, § 114.¹

She appeals from the conspiracy conviction, contending that the evidence, while indicative of a buyer-seller transaction, was insufficient to show that she agreed to distribute cocaine. We conclude that the evidence of conspiracy to distribute was insufficient, and that the conspiracy conviction must be reversed.

Background. This case arises out of an undercover investigation conducted by the Marlborough police department. We set

forth the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676–677, 393 N.E.2d 370 (1979)

.

At the request of Marlborough police Detective Manning, Brian Hart, a civilian “undercover police operative,” contacted Jonathan Wright,² the defendant's alleged coconspirator, to buy cocaine. Wright said he could arrange the purchase of cocaine for Hart, but that Hart would have to wait one-half hour since the seller was leaving a hospital and needed time to get to the meeting place. After speaking with Wright, Hart contacted Detective Manning, who gave Hart a police department undercover car, $100 in cash, and a “wire”³ for use during the buy.

Hart drove to Wright's residence in Northborough on Wright's instructions. Once there, Wright got into Hart's car and they drove to the Olive Garden restaurant in Marlborough. Hart parked the car outside of the restaurant and Wright made a telephone call. Hart heard Wright refer to “Pam,” but could not hear the conversation.

A few minutes later, a red Ford F–150 pickup truck (truck) pulled up behind Hart's car in the restaurant parking lot; Wright told Hart that this was the person for whom they were waiting. Hart could not see who was in the truck since it was behind him and higher than his car. Detective Manning, who had been conducting surveillance in the parking lot in an unmarked car, saw the driver of the truck, later identified as the defendant, as she drove by. She was the only person in the truck.

Hart gave Wright $100 for “two fifties,” that is, two fifty dollar bags of cocaine, each weighing one-half gram, an amount described by one of the detectives as a street-level sale. There was evidence that Hart had purchased drugs from Wright in the past, but no evidence that the defendant had been involved.

Wright got out of Hart's car, approached the truck, and got in. The truck pulled forward into a parking spot approximately fifteen feet behind Hart's vehicle. Neither Hart nor Detective Manning were able to see what took place inside the truck. Wright returned to Hart's car shortly thereafter, stated, “[W]e're all set,” and handed two bags of a white substance to Hart. There was no evidence as to what happened to the cash Hart gave to Wright.

“Two clear plastic knotted bags containing a white chunk-like substance” were later turned over to Detective Manning. Testing confirmed the bags contained cocaine.

Detective Manning followed the truck as it left the restaurant parking lot and pulled into the parking lot at a hospital. The defendant entered the hospital, came out “less than a minute” later, and drove away in the truck. Shortly thereafter, at the request of Detective Manning, Officer Hassapes stopped the truck for a civil motor vehicle infraction. The defendant gave Officer Hassapes the truck's registration, but told him that she did not have her license; she gave him her sister's name and date of birth. Detective Manning also approached the truck, and recognized the defendant, in the driver's seat, as the driver of the truck from the Olive Garden parking lot. Detective Manning ran a query in the registry of motor vehicles system for Pamela Doty, which produced a picture of the defendant. At trial, both Officer Hassapes and Detective Manning identified the defendant as the driver of the truck.

The parties stipulated that there was no evidence that Wright had purchased drugs from the defendant in the past, and the jury were so instructed at trial. When the prosecutor referred to the defendant as a “drug dealer” during her closing argument, the judge further instructed the jury that the parties agreed that the defendant was not charged with any other offense and that “[t]he use of the term ‘drug dealer’ was a slip of the tongue ... not to be considered by” the jury.

The indictment alleged that the defendant and Wright conspired to distribute cocaine under G.L. c. 94C, § 40

.⁴ The conspiracy charge and a distribution charge (of which the defendant was acquitted) were tried together without objection. But see Mass.R.Crim.P. 9(e), 378 Mass. 861 (1979). The Commonwealth's theory of the case was that the defendant, the seller, had entered into an agreement with Wright, the middleman, to distribute cocaine to Hart. However, the judge instructed more broadly, stating that in order to prove a conspiracy to distribute, “the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

the defendant joined in an agreement or plan with one or more other persons ... to do something unlawful.”

Discussion. The Controlled Substances Act, see G.L. c. 94C, does not define the term “conspiracy” in the context of a conspiracy to distribute. In divining the Legislature's intent, we look to the relevant precedent under the Federal statute upon which c. 94C was based, our established and developing common law of conspiracy,⁵ see Commonwealth v. Cass, 392 Mass. 799, 801, 467 N.E.2d 1324 (1984)

; Commonwealth v. Colon, 431 Mass. 188, 191, 726 N.E.2d 909 (2000), and the statutory scheme as a whole.

The defendant urges us to adopt the Federal courts' interpretation of the analogous Federal statute's meaning of an agreement to distribute in the context of a conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance under G.L. c. 94C, § 40

. Because the defendant did not raise this argument below in her motion for a required finding, we review for error and, if there was error, for a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice. Commonwealth v. Bell, 455 Mass. 408, 411, 917 N.E.2d 740 (2009). We address a far narrower question, that is, on the facts presented, whether the evidence of this single buyer-seller transaction, without more, was sufficient to prove a conspiracy to distribute. We conclude that it was not.

1. Parameters of a conspiracy to distribute. The indictment here alleged, in relevant part, that the defendant and Wright conspired to distribute cocaine in violation of G.L. c. 94C, § 40

. The indictment and the judge's instructions were susceptible to two different interpretations as to the nature of the conspiracy. The first interpretation is that there was a conspiracy between A (the defendant) and B (Wright) because they agreed that A would sell cocaine to B, and that B would buy it. The evidence in this case of a single buyer-seller transaction in which the defendant was the seller and Wright was the buyer was sufficient to prove a sale from A to B; Wright set up the deal, took the money to the defendant, and returned with drugs. If a single buyer-seller transaction between A and B is sufficient to prove the agreement

underlying a conspiracy, the evidence here is sufficient.⁶ However, as discussed more fully below, this proposition has been consistently rejected by Federal and State appellate courts interpreting analogous statutes.

The second interpretation is that the Commonwealth must prove that A (the defendant) and B (Wright) entered into an agreement to distribute to C, a third party or parties (here Hart). This is the theory that was argued to the jury. The defendant maintains that, as a matter of law, the statute requires that there be some evidence of a knowing and purposeful agreement to enter into a chain of distribution. The defendant further contends that the evidence here, which consisted of a single sale, is insufficient because there was nothing about the sale that indicated that the defendant knew, much less agreed or intended, that Wright would further distribute the cocaine to another person or persons. Thus, the defendant contends, the Commonwealth failed to prove that the defendant and Wright entered into an agreement to distribute a controlled substance.

Our cases have not squarely addressed whether a single buyer-seller transaction, without more, constitutes a conspiracy to distribute.⁷ In interpreting the Controlled Substances Act, the Supreme Judicial Court has, however, looked to the evolving case law under the closely analogous Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (Federal statute), on which G.L. c. 94C is modeled. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 801

, 846 ;⁸

Commonwealth v. Cantres, 405 Mass. 238, 240, 540 N.E.2d 149 (1989) ; Commonwealth v.

Brown,

456 Mass. 708, 716, 925 N.E.2d 845 (2010). We therefore look to the Federal cases, which, though not controlling, are instructive. See Commonwealth v. Brown, supra.

2. Federal cases. “As a result of the long running ‘war on drugs' waged by the federal government,” State v. Allan, 311 Conn. 1, 13, 83 A.3d 326 (2014)

(Allan ), all twelve circuits of the United States Courts of Appeal have addressed the sufficiency of the evidence in drug distribution conspiracies. All have held that evidence of a buyer-seller relationship, without more, does not constitute a conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.⁹ As State appellate courts have grappled with the application of conspiracy law to drug distribution prosecutions, they have also held, relying...