Court Opinion

ID: 9957802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 14:08:23.385504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:40.010953
License: Public Domain

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

                                                  23-P-703

                                  COMMONWEALTH

                                       vs.

                                 ANDRES RAMOS.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       The defendant appeals from his convictions, after a

 Superior Court jury trial, of trafficking in fentanyl, see G. L.

 c. 94C, § 32E (c 1/2), and operating to endanger, see G. L.

 c. 90, § 24 (2) (a).1       At trial, one contested issue was whether

 the defendant intended to distribute the large quantity of

 fentanyl police recovered from near his person.             On appeal, the

 defendant argues two errors in the admission of expert testimony

 regarding the element of possession with intent to distribute as

 compared to simple possession.         We affirm.

       1The defendant does not address the operating to endanger
 conviction in his briefing and we therefore need not address
 that conviction further. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as
 appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019) ("appellate court need not
 pass upon questions or issues not argued in the brief").
     1.   Expert's explanation of opinion.   State Police Sergeant

Edward Troy testified as an expert on narcotics distribution.

With the judge's advance approval and over the defendant's

objection, the Commonwealth was permitted to ask Sergeant Troy

the following question, based on what the defendant acknowledges

"are precisely the facts pertaining to the defendant" himself.

     "Hypothetically, if a person was found with no pipes,
     cotton swabs, spoons, needles, or straws, but had on his
     person approximately 70 grams of powder containing fentanyl
     packaged in seven cylinders wrapped in wax-like paper, one
     knotted plastic bag containing 1.4 grams of fentanyl, a
     second knotted plastic bag containing 3.77 grams of
     fentanyl and heroin, two pieces of powder wrapped in wax-
     like paper containing approximately 0.70 grams of fentanyl
     each, and $335 in cash, would that situation be more
     consistent, in your opinion, with personal use of fentanyl
     or the intent to distribute fentanyl?"

Sergeant Troy answered, "That's -- that's not consistent with

personal use.   That's consistent with intent to distribute."

     On appeal, the defendant does not press his objection to

the hypothetical question itself, nor does he point to anything

improper in Sergeant Troy's answer to that question.    We agree

with the Commonwealth that the question and answer were

permissible under decisions such as Commonwealth v. Dancy, 75

Mass. App. Ct. 175, 184-185 (2009).2   Although an argument

heading in the defendant's brief refers to "[t]he hypothetical

     2 The judge expressed reservations about the caselaw
permitting this type of hypothetical but recognized that he was
bound to follow it.

                                2
question and the expert's response," the defendant's actual

argument focuses instead on how Sergeant Troy answered a follow-

up question from the Commonwealth.

    That question was, "What makes you say that scenario would

be more consistent with the intent to distribute than with

personal use?"   The defendant objected to that question, but the

objection was overruled.    On appeal, he does not press the

point, and we see no error or abuse of discretion in allowing

the question to be asked.

    Sergeant Troy's lengthy answer included the following

statements, the emphasized portions of which (with bracketed

numbers added for ease of reference) the defendant now asserts

were improper:

    "As I said, [1] that's consistent with when people make a
    run that are involved in the distribution of fentanyl, the
    way it's packaged to the various customers and so forth.
    If the person was personal use, they would pick up a
    package, perhaps enough to last them for a few days. Maybe
    a gram, maybe even in an extreme case, you know, half a
    finger, a 5-gram package. You know, that would be
    potentially consistent with personal use. That's more
    commonly seen. [2] But the way you're describing that it
    being packaged and the sheer weight of it, with the minute
    doses that are used when it's -- when you consider how
    small these doses are of fentanyl, that’s why that's
    consistent with intent to distribute. And the fact that
    there's some cash and there's also some drugs. [3] It's,
    you know, during various times during when someone makes a
    run when they're selling -- going out, making a run, and
    selling drugs to -- in these various weights. . . . So as
    a result, depending on where in the run . . . that they're
    making, selling the drugs . . . if they just left the stash
    location, there's going to be -- could be all drugs and no
    money. But if you get halfway through or a quarter of the

                                 3
    way through, there might be some money and still a lot of
    drugs. Or if you get near the end, there could be very
    little drugs and quite a bit of money."

The defendant argues that the emphasized phrases amounted to

testimony that "when people engage in a factual scenario that is

exactly like the one in the hypothetical that [the defendant

himself] also engaged in, they are selling drugs [emphasis

omitted]."   This, in the defendant's view, did not merely touch

on the ultimate issue, but directly addressed it and asserted

that the defendant "was selling drugs and is guilty."     See

Dancy, 75 Mass. App. Ct. at 183 (expert may touch on ultimate

issues before jury but may not opine on defendant's innocence or

guilt).

    The defendant did not object to or move to strike this

answer.   His objection to the question did not preserve an

objection to each and every aspect of the answer.   See

Commonwealth v. Almele, 474 Mass. 1017, 1018-1019 (2016).       We

therefore consider whether anything about the parts of the

answer of which the defendant now complains created a

substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.   See id.   That

question turns on whether we have "a serious doubt whether the

result of the trial might have been different had the [claimed]

                                 4
error not been made."3       Commonwealth v. LeFave, 430 Mass. 169,

174 (1999).

       In the first passage, Sergeant Troy added unnecessary

verbiage to the permissible "consistent with an intent to

distribute" formulation described in Dancy, 75 Mass. App. Ct. at

184.       He opined that the facts in the hypothetical were

"consistent with . . . people . . . that are involved in . . .

distribution."      But his "statements were not definitive."     Id.

at 185.       "Nor were his statements conclusory, but rather part of

his broader explanation of characteristics of drug

[distribution]."       Id.   Nowhere in Sergeant Troy's lengthy

answer, or for that matter anywhere in his forty-four transcript

pages of testimony, did he mention the defendant.

       In the second passage, Sergeant Troy referred to certain

elements of the hypothetical -- drug packaging and weight -- but

not to persons engaged in drug distribution.        He explained why,

in light of the minute amount of fentanyl in a typical dose, the

elements in question were "consistent with intent to

       More specifically, as the Supreme Judicial Court has said,
       3

"we consider four questions: (1) whether there was error, (2)
whether the defendant was prejudiced by the error,
(3) '[c]onsidering the error in the context of the entire
trial,' whether it would be 'reasonable to conclude that the
error materially influenced the verdict,' and (4) whether we may
infer from the record that counsel's failure to object was not a
reasonable tactical decision." Commonwealth v. Russell, 439
Mass. 340, 345 (2003), quoting Commonwealth v. Randolph, 438
Mass. 290, 298 (2002).

                                     5
distribute."    This was entirely proper.   See Dancy, 75 Mass.

App. Ct. at 184.

    In the third passage, stripped to its essentials, Sergeant

Troy opined that when someone is out selling drugs, they will

have relatively more drugs and less money at the beginning of

the "run," and relatively less drugs and more money near the end

of the "run."    This did not use the "consistent with"

formulation.    Nor was it particularly responsive to the

prosecutor's question because it did not explain why the amount

of drugs and money in the hypothetical -- approximately seventy

grams of fentanyl and $335 in cash -- were more consistent with

the intent to distribute than with personal use.    For the same

reason, however, it was not particularly prejudicial.

    More generally, the overall tenor of Sergeant Troy's

testimony was focused not on any person's actual conduct but on

whether hypothetical conduct was "consistent with" intent to

distribute versus possession for personal use.     He used the

phrase "consistent with" eight separate times.     The jury would

not have misunderstood the testimony as a direct opinion on the

defendant's guilt.    Moreover, the undisputedly proper portions

of the testimony, particularly as to the quantity possessed,

established a strong case for intent to distribute.       And the

judge properly instructed the jury on how they should evaluate

expert testimony.    We therefore conclude that, to whatever

                                  6
limited extent the testimony strayed outside the bounds

established by prior case law, it did not create a substantial

risk of a miscarriage of justice.     See Commonwealth v. Almele,

87 Mass. App. Ct. 218, 228 (2015), S.C., 474 Mass. at 1019.

     2.   Effects of fentanyl.    The defendant argues that

Sergeant Troy's testimony about certain effects of fentanyl was

more prejudicial than probative and should not have been

admitted.   We are unpersuaded.   "[D]iscretion is vested in the

judge to determine whether the probative value of the evidence

is substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair

prejudice to the opponent of its admissibility."     Ruszcyk v.

Secretary of Pub. Safety, 401 Mass. 418, 422 (1988).    See

Commonwealth v. Bonds, 445 Mass. 821, 831 (2006).     There was no

abuse of discretion here.

     The defendant first points to Sergeant Troy's testimony

that when fentanyl was introduced in this country in the mid-

1990s, it was so potent that it caused "too many . . . overdose

deaths," leading its distributors to take it off the market

after a year or a year and a half.     Notwithstanding his claim in

his appellate brief, the defendant did not object to this

testimony,4 and so we review for whether any error created a

substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.

     4 The defendant objected only to Sergeant Troy's answer to a
subsequent question asking what similarities between fentanyl

                                  7
     We see none.   As part of his answer, Sergeant Troy further

testified that when fentanyl was reintroduced ten to twelve

years ago, "it was still a very potent and dangerous substance

but less so than when it had come out . . . in the '90s," and

that, as a result, it stayed here and has "taken over for

heroin."   Thus, although the potency of fentanyl in the 1990s

was of limited relevance and was potentially inflammatory,

Sergeant Troy himself immediately made clear that the fentanyl

now in circulation is different and less potent.   The jury would

not have taken Sergeant Troy's testimony about an earlier type

of fentanyl as applying to the fentanyl the defendant was

charged with trafficking.   If there was any unfair prejudice at

all, we have no "serious doubt whether the result of the trial

might have been different" had the testimony been excluded.      See

LeFave, 430 Mass. at 174.

     The defendant next points to Sergeant Troy's testimony, in

response to a question asking what was the average dose of

fentanyl that is used at a given time, that fentanyl is up to

200 times more potent than heroin.5   Once again, the defendant

and heroin allowed fentanyl to be passed off as heroin. At the
sidebar that followed, the defendant did not move to strike, or
even mention, the earlier testimony about the introduction of
fentanyl in the 1990s.

     5 Sergeant Troy concluded his answer by stating that the
average dose of fentanyl "is between [five] milligrams and maybe
an eighth of a gram."

                                 8
did not object, nor did he move to strike the testimony.     The

testimony was relevant to whether the quantity of fentanyl found

near the defendant was intended for personal use or instead for

distribution.   In light of the evidence that among the items

police found near the defendant were approximately seventy grams

of powder containing fentanyl, as well as a bag containing 3.77

grams of fentanyl and heroin, the relative potencies of fentanyl

and heroin could have assisted the jury in deciding what the

defendant intended to do with seventy grams of fentanyl.     We

cannot say that "the probative value of the evidence [was]

substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice."

Ruszcyk, 401 Mass. at 422.   Admission of the evidence was not an

abuse of discretion and certainly created no substantial risk of

a miscarriage of justice.

                                     Judgments affirmed.

                                     By the Court (Sacks, Singh &
                                       Walsh, JJ.6),

                                     Assistant Clerk

Entered: April 5, 2024.

    6   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                 9