ARTHUR FROOM W v. BYRON ROSALES

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the defendant did not stipulate to the composition of the drugs
• packaging of drugs in manner consistent with distribution insufficient to prove that substances were, in fact, cocaine and marijuana
• although defendant did not contest nature of substances, defense theory cannot relieve Commonwealth of its burden of proving nature of substances
• erroneous admission in evidence of certificates of drug analysis without testimony of analyst was not harmless beyond reasonable doubt where, inter alia, defendant “did not. . . stipulate to the composition of the substances”
• rejecting the argument that defense counsel may “tacitly stipulate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).