Brown v. Commonwealth
This text of 837 N.E.2d 250 (Brown v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Terrance Brown appeals from a judgment entered by a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.
Brown is a codefendant with Nathan Rivera in a pending homicide case. At Rivera’s request, a judge in the Superior Court ordered that Brown submit to a buccal swab for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis.1 Brown unsuccessfully challenged that order in the county court. The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). Brown claims that he cannot obtain adequate review on appeal because by then the seizure — the swabbing of his cheek — will already have occurred. We rejected the same argument in White v. Commonwealth, 439 Mass. 1017 (2003). See Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation, 435 Mass. 1002, 1003 (2001) (rejecting same argument concerning blood sample). See also Glawson v. Commonwealth, 436 Mass. 1007 (2002) (blood and hair samples); Cummins v. Commonwealth, 433 Mass. 1005, 1006 (2001) (blood sample). Accordingly, Brown has failed to meet his burden under rule 2:21.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
837 N.E.2d 250, 445 Mass. 1016, 2005 Mass. LEXIS 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-commonwealth-mass-2005.