Appeals court hears challenge to Perez heroin conviction over constructive-possession evidence

The Massachusetts Appeals Court on Zoom heard oral argument in Commonwealth v. Perez (2024P385), a challenge to a conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin. Attorney Simara Hernandez, for appellant Wanda Perez, asked the court to reverse, contending the evidence was insufficient to prove Perez knowingly possessed the drugs under a theory of constructive possession.

Hernandez told the panel, “I’m here today requesting that this court reverse my client's conviction for possession with intent to distribute,” arguing the heroin was inside a small brown purse in the front bedroom and was not in plain view. She emphasized that mere presence of identification or bills linked to Perez in the residence does not by itself prove knowledge or dominion over contraband, noting the purse lacked identifying marks tying it to her client and that another resident, Pena, had been observed making sales: Hernandez said officers found nine bags of heroin on Pena and that $60 was found on Perez.

Panel chief Vicky Henry and another questioner pressed the parties on timing and record references, asking whether the record shows when the search warrant was executed. Hernandez said her notes indicated a 1:00 p.m. execution but acknowledged uncertainty about the exact record pages she cited. The timing issue matters to both sides because the prosecutor relied on a short interval between an observed sale to a buyer, Christopher Boutin, and the officers’ execution of the warrant.

Assistant District Attorney Sean Buxton, arguing for the Commonwealth, asked the court to affirm the conviction. Buxton said the brown purse in the bedroom contained an appointment card and a medical card bearing Perez’s name, and that additional evidence—clothing found in the bedroom, two bills addressed to Perez, a key that opened the rear door found in the purse, and a filled-out voter registration listing the address—supported a finding of occupancy and, in turn, constructive possession. “I would argue that all of that combined,” Buxton said, “attribute[d] some knowledge of everything in the apartment.”

Buxton also highlighted the quantity and packaging of narcotics, saying the purse contained 126 individually packaged bags of heroin and pointing to scales, blowout bags and a cutting agent found in the bedroom as consistent with distribution. He cited prior appellate comparisons on count and packaging to support the inference of intent to distribute. Buxton acknowledged some uncertainty in the transcript about exactly where in the bedroom the brown purse was found and said he had not immediately located the precise record site for the warrant time, but maintained that the approximately half-hour window among the observed sale, Pena’s departure and the warrant execution supported the Commonwealth’s inferences.

Neither side sought to expand the record further at the Zoom session. Panel chief Vicky Henry closed the Zoom portion and said the court would resume its sitting at the John Adams Courthouse; the appeals panel did not issue a decision at the hearing.