Appeals court hears dispute over fingerprint evidence and untranslated Spanish notebook in drug conviction

Commonwealth v. Luis Guillermo: At oral argument before the Massachusetts Appeals Court, defense counsel argued that a latent fingerprint identification and a Spanish-language notebook used at trial were admitted in violation of the rules of evidence and that those errors require a new trial. The defense told the court the Commonwealth “concedes that the fingerprint was inadmissible hearsay,” and urged the panel to reverse on preservation and prejudice grounds. The Commonwealth replied it did not concede the expert testimony comparing known and latent prints and said the courtroom evidence supports the conviction.

Why it matters: The case raises recurring appellate issues about (1) how courts authenticate AFIS/known-print records and latent-print comparisons, (2) when an uncertain objection at trial preserves an evidentiary claim on appeal, and (3) the admission of untranslated foreign-language writings and any resulting prejudice to a defendant.

What the defense told the court: Attorney Murat Arakan argued the prosecution introduced a print card and identified it as the defendant’s print through inadmissible hearsay because the booking officer who took or could authenticate the print did not testify. “That the identification of the INT print card as being that of Luis Guillermo was … admitted through inadmissible hearsay,” Arakan said, responding to the panel’s questioning. Arakan told the court the defense alerted the trial judge that a foundational step was missing — the booking officer — and that the judge’s apparent characterization of the objection as a chain-of-custody dispute did not cure the lack of foundation.

On the separate notebook evidence, Arakan argued that a notebook found in a bedroom with numbers and Spanish words and a unit marked “grama” was effectively presented to the jury in Spanish without a prior, contemporaneous translation. He asked the panel to treat the notebook situation under the principles from Portillo (as discussed at argument) and to find that allowing an un-translated Spanish ledger into evidence was prejudicial because the translation supplied the most incriminating reading (a 50-gram entry) that the defendant denied.

What the Commonwealth told the court: Assistant District Attorney Zane Kennedy told the panel the admissible issue is narrower than the defense contended. Kennedy acknowledged the AFIS/known-print card itself “was not properly admitted as a business record,” but argued that the fingerprint expert could still testify comparing a known print of the defendant with the latent print from the packaging. On authentication, Kennedy pointed to circumstances connecting the AP( A)FIS card, the apartment where the latent print was found, and the defendant’s occupancy of that apartment; she said those circumstances supplied sufficient foundation under Massachusetts authentication law. Kennedy further disputed that the notebook translation was prejudicial, noting the defense had opportunities to challenge translation and cross-examine witnesses and that other evidence at trial contributed to the verdict.

Court questioning and preservation: The three-justice panel pressed both parties on whether the defense preserved its objections at trial and on the standard for reversal if not preserved. The justices asked whether the judge’s apparent mischaracterization of the objection as a chain-of-custody challenge required the defense to clarify its grounds at trial, and whether, on prejudice review, the latent-print evidence could be said to have had a decisive effect on a jury faced with additional circumstantial evidence (packaging, cash, phone records, admissions, and a notebook).

Procedure & posture: These arguments are on the appeal from a conviction; no new ruling was announced at argument. The panel heard extended briefing and oral argument on authentication, preservation, and prejudice.

What to watch next: The court’s opinion will address (1) whether the trial objection was sufficiently specific to preserve the hearsay/authentication arguments; (2) whether the expert’s testimony comparing a known print to a latent print may stand when the AFIS/known-print card itself was not admitted as a business record; and (3) whether admitting untranslated written material (the Spanish notebook) was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt or prejudicial enough to require a new trial.