Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. MacDonald

Citations

  • 459 Mass. 148
  • 945 N.E.2d 260
  • 2011 Mass. LEXIS 150

How courts have described this case

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

  • circumstantial evidence such as testimony of experienced police officer sufficient to prove substance was particular drug
  • after police saw defendant exchange item with driver of red car, defendant's denial \goes to the identity of the substance\
  • high sales price and on-the-scene remarks by conspirator identifying substance are relevant to establishing its identity as controlled substance
  • “In a case involving a narcotics offense, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance at issue ‘is a particular drug’ because such proof is an element of the crime charged” (citation omitted)
  • \Provided that a witness does not directly offer an opinion regarding the defendant's guilt or innocence in a criminal case . . . we have no rule in Massachusetts prohibiting an opinion that touches on an ultimate issue\
  • trained police officer may identify odor of marijuana

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ireland, Spina, Cowin, Cordy, Botsford, Gants

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.