NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 

23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, 

as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties 

and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's 

decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire 

court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. 

A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 

2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted 

above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 

n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

22-P-1094

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

CARLOS RIOS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant, Carlos Rios, was indicted on one count of 

unlawful possession of a firearm as a career criminal, see G. L. 

c. 269, §§ 10 (a) & 10G (b); one count of unlawful possession of 

ammunition as a career criminal, see G. L. c. 269, §§ 10 (h) & 

10G (b); two counts of assault and battery on a family or 

household member, see G. L. c. 265, § 13M (a); one count of 

unlawful possession of a class B substance (cocaine), see G. L. 

c. 94C, § 34; one count of trafficking in cocaine in an amount 

between eighteen and thirty-six grams, see G. L. c. 94C, § 32E 

(b) (1); and one count of possession of a firearm in the 

commission of a felony, see G. L. c. 265, § 18B.1 The defendant 

1 The Commonwealth filed a nolle prosequi of the count of the 

2019 indictment alleging possession of cocaine, and all of the 

remaining counts of the indictments were tried before a jury.
2

now appeals from the denial of his motion for a required finding 

on the charges of trafficking in cocaine and possession of 

firearms and ammunition. We affirm.

Background. For purposes of the sufficiency challenge, we 

summarize the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 

469, 471 (2018), quoting Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 

671, 677 (1979). The defendant was at home with his girlfriend 

when a dispute occurred between the defendant and another 

person. When the girlfriend stepped in between the two, the 

defendant hit her several times in the face. The girlfriend 

called the police and the responding officers arrested the 

defendant. At the time of the arrest, the defendant was wearing 

a backpack. The officers asked him to remove it so they could 

handcuff him, and the backpack was subsequently searched 

incident to the arrest and the defendant was pat frisked. While 

conducting the patfrisk one of the officers discovered a "golf 

ball-size glassine baggie containing a white powdery substance." 

The officer searching the backpack found "a red glassine baggie 

that contained ammunition" and a box with a firearm and 

magazines inside. The arresting officers ran the defendant's 

name through a database and found that he did not have a license 

to carry a firearm or a firearm identification (FID) card. The 
3

substance in the baggie, which the officers suspected was 

cocaine, was sent to a lab for testing.

At trial, a laboratory technician testified that the 

substance in the baggie was cocaine weighing 20.2235 grams. The 

Commonwealth also offered the testimony of Officer Ryder, whose 

expert testimony, if credited by the jury, established the 

following facts. Possession of twenty grams of cocaine was more 

consistent with the intent to distribute than the intent to use, 

as users typically have only enough money to purchase about onehalf of one gram at a time. The cocaine was likely purchased 

for $1,200 to $1,300 and could be resold on the street for 

$2,000. Because the drug community is secretive and insular, 

only a trusted person would likely be able to obtain that volume 

of cocaine. Users (as opposed to dealers) typically carry items 

such as a rolled-up bill, straw, razor blade, or credit card

with which to arrange and snort cocaine. No such implements 

were found on the defendant or in the backpack. Finally, 

dealers often also possess firearms to protect themselves from 

theft.

Discussion. 1. Trafficking. As relevant here, "[t]here 

are five elements to the charge of trafficking in [cocaine] that 

the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, namely 

that (1) the defendant knowingly or intentionally (2) possessed 

(actually or constructively) (3) [eighteen] grams or more [but 
4

less than thirty-six grams] (4) of [cocaine] (5) with the 

specific intent to distribute it." Commonwealth v. Ortega, 441 

Mass. 170, 174 n.7 (2004). See G. L. c. 94C, § 32E (b) (1). 

The defendant asserts that the judge's denial of his motion for 

a required finding of not guilty was erroneous because the 

Commonwealth did not meet its burden of proof regarding intent 

to distribute.

"When reviewing the denial of a motion for a required 

finding of not guilty, 'we consider the evidence introduced at 

trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and 

determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the 

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" 

Commonwealth v. Polanco, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 764, 771 (2018),

quoting Commonwealth v. Oberle, 476 Mass. 539, 547 (2017). 

Factors relevant to proving intent to distribute include the 

amount of money found on the defendant's person, evidence of 

involvement in a drug transaction, whether the transaction 

occurred in an area known for drug sales and use, the absence of 

drug paraphernalia, the amount of drugs recovered, the manner in 

which the drugs are packaged, and the testimony of an expert 

witness. See Commonwealth v. Richardson, 479 Mass. 344, 360-362 

(2018); Commonwealth v. Sepheus, 468 Mass. 160, 164-169 (2014).

Additionally, "[a] person's . . . intent . . . is a matter of 

fact, which may not be susceptible of proof by direct evidence." 
5

Richardson, supra at 360, quoting Commonwealth v. Ellis, 356 

Mass. 574, 578-579 (1970).

Here, the Commonwealth offered testimony that officers 

found twenty grams of cocaine in the defendant's possession. In 

addition, there was evidence regarding the street retail value 

of the amount found, that this amount was more consistent with 

distribution than personal use, that there were no implements of 

personal use in the defendant's possession, and that dealers 

often carried firearms to guard against theft. This evidence 

was sufficient to prove intent to distribute. See Sepheus, 468 

Mass. at 164-169.

The defendant asserts that evidence indicative of 

distribution (such as money or scales) was lacking, and that 

there was no evidence that the defendant himself used drugs or 

that the drugs discovered were part of a bigger stash. The 

claim is unavailing as it was for the jury to decide what weight 

to accord the evidence. See Richardson, 479 Mass. at 362. 

Considering all of the evidence -- and the expert testimony in 

particular -- in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

there was sufficient evidence to prove intent to distribute. 

See Sepheus, 468 Mass. at 164-169.

2. Possession of firearm and ammunition. For the first 

time on appeal, the defendant asserts that it was the 

Commonwealth's burden to prove that he did not have a license to 
6

carry the firearm or ammunition. The defendant further asserts 

that the judge's instruction that the jury need not consider 

licensure was in error because the Commonwealth must prove, 

among other things, that the defendant did not have a valid 

license to carry the firearm or possess the ammunition at the 

time the gun and ammunition were found, and the instruction 

failed to inform the jury of this essential element of the 

offenses.2

While this case was pending on appeal, the Supreme Judicial 

Court decided Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666 (2023). 

Relying on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n. v. Bruen, 142 S. 

Ct. 2111 (2022), the Supreme Judicial Court held in Guardado, 

supra at 686-694, that (1) the defendant's failure to raise the

issue of the burden of proof of licensure was excused under the 

"clairvoyance" exception to our usual preservation requirements, 

(2) absence of licensure was an element of the offense of 

unlawful possession of a firearm, (3) the Commonwealth carried 

the burden of proving absence of licensure beyond a reasonable 

2 Without objection, the judge instructed the jury that "The law 

provides for exemptions for criminal responsibility for 

possession of a firearm if the defendant demonstrates that he 

possessed the weapon in his personal residence or place of 

business, and/or if the defendant demonstrates that he had a 

lawfully issued license to carry such a firearm. In the present 

case, however, there is no evidence that the defendant possessed 

a valid firearm's license. So, for this reason, the issue of 

license is not relevant to your deliberations."
7

doubt, (4) the jury should be so instructed, (5) the failure to 

provide evidence of an absence of licensure and to instruct that 

the Commonwealth bore the burden of proof on this element rose 

to the level of a violation of the defendant's right to due 

process, and (6) its decision was applicable to all cases 

pending in the trial court or the appellate courts since Bruen, 

supra. Applying these holdings to this case, we conclude that 

evidence of non-licensure was an element of the Commonwealth's 

case for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. We

review the erroneous instruction, which relieved the 

Commonwealth of its burden of proof, to determine whether the 

error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth

v. Bookman, 492 Mass. 396, 401 (2023); Commonwealth v. Hinckley, 

422 Mass. 261, 266-267 (1996).

As with other constitutional errors, "the results of our 

review are determined by the circumstances of each case."

Commonwealth v. Hoyt, 461 Mass. 143, 155 (2011), quoting 

Commonwealth v. Mahdi, 388 Mass. 679, 697 (1983). "The 

'essential question' in analyzing harmlessness beyond a 

reasonable doubt is 'whether the error had, or might have had, 

an effect on the [fact finder] and whether the error contributed 

to or might have contributed to the [findings of guilty].'" 

Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 456 Mass. 350, 360 (2010), quoting 

Commonwealth v. Perrot, 407 Mass. 539, 549 (1990). "The inquiry 
8

'is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a 

guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the 

guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely 

unattributable to the error.'" Vasquez, supra at 361, quoting 

Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 (1993). The 

Commonwealth bears the burden of demonstrating that the error 

was harmless. Vasquez, supra at 362.

Looking "to the basis on which 'the [fact finder] actually 

rested its verdict,'" the Commonwealth has met its burden here. 

Vasquez, 456 Mass. at 360-361, quoting Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 

279, and Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391, 404 (1991). The evidence 

at trial was sufficient to establish that the defendant did not 

have a license to carry a firearm or possess ammunition.3 The 

evidence was unchallenged; no question of admissibility, 

credibility, weight, or reliability was presented. See Bookman, 

492 Mass. at 401. In closing argument, the defendant 

acknowledged that "[i]f he had a weapon he's guilty of the 

licensing provision." Under these circumstances, we are sure 

3 After Bookman was decided, we requested supplemental briefing. 

In response to our order, the defendant has argued that the 

evidence of nonlicensure was insufficient because it was 

improperly admitted. We do not consider the argument. The 

sufficiency of the evidence "is to be measured upon that which 

was admitted in evidence without regard to the propriety of the 

admission." Sepheus, 468 Mass. at 164, quoting Commonwealth v. 

Farnsworth, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 87, 98 (2010).
9

that the erroneous instruction did not influence the verdicts in 

any respect.

Judgments affirmed.

By the Court (Sullivan, 

Desmond & Singh, JJ.4),

Clerk

Entered: August 15, 2023.

4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.