# Commonwealth v. King

> Massachusetts Appeals Court · July 2, 2010 · 77 Mass. App. Ct. 189

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6463796

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth v. Joshua L. King
- **Court:** Massachusetts Appeals Court
- **Decided:** July 2, 2010
- **Citations:** 77 Mass. App. Ct. 189; 928 N.E.2d 1014; 2010 Mass. App. LEXIS 894
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown, Grainger
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6463796

## Opinion text

Brown, J.
(dissenting). Notwithstanding this court’s reliance on the fleeting reference to “field testing” in Commonwealth v. Connolly, 454 Mass. 808, 831 (2009), I think that in order to “nullify” the effect of the admission in evidence of the high probative value laboratory certificate, the so-called practice of “field testing” requires more demonstrative evidence than an officer’s mere statement that he has done it. 1 I am of the opinion *193 that in the circumstances presented here I am constrained to follow the teachings of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009), and I would, therefore, reverse the defendant’s conviction.
Admittedly, defense counsel could have probed on cross-examination to ascertain the field testing protocol; however, he cannot be faulted for not having done so in light of his awareness that the Commonwealth would proffer as prima facie evidence the compelling, persuasive, inculpatory scientific laboratory certificate.-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6463796. Public record. Not legal advice.