 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Shellenberger7/20/2005
dical records were "difficult to decipher" and, without "testimony from a medically knowledgeable witness," invited jury to speculate).
Because neither of these prerequisites was met, the evidence of the mere presence of amphetamines cannot justify the verdict and the supplemental theory of proof advanced by the Commonwealth. As presented and argued, such evidence invited unacceptable speculation by the jury. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 59 Mass. App. Ct. at 169.
The defendant argues on appeal that the amphetamine evidence was introduced either by accident or ambush. In this case, such distinctions are irrelevant. The point is that toxic evidence ended up before the jury unfairly and was presented in a manner that undermines the validity of the verdict.
Evidence of guilt must not require a jury to speculate. See Commonwealth v. Kirpatrick, supra; Commonwealth v. Martin, 427 Mass. 816, 821-822 (1998) (distinguishing probative value of preliminary urine screen and subsequent test confirming presence of drug); Commonwealth v. Johnson, supra.
The judgment is reversed.
So ordered.
Page 1 2 3 4 Massachusetts DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|