Commonwealth v. Almele
Annotate this CaseAfter a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a class B controlled substance and possession of class B and C controlled substances with intent to distribute. On appeal, Defendant argued that the prosecution’s expert witness, a police officer, impermissibly offered an opinion as to Defendant’s guilt. The Appeals Court affirmed. In so doing, the court concluded that Defendant did not preserve the error and thus reviewed the claim to determine whether a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice was created rather than to determine whether the error was prejudicial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the error Defendant challenged should be reviewed to determine whether it created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice; and (2) the error did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.