Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 22C, § 39 (2026)

Chemical analysis of narcotic drug or drug substitute, etc.; certificate of results; prima facie evidence

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 39. (a) The department shall, free of charge, or the University of Massachusetts Medical School shall, under section 36B of chapter 75, make a chemical analysis of any narcotic drug, any synthetic substitute for the same, any preparation containing the same, or any salt or compound thereof, and of any poison, drug, medicine or chemical submitted to it by police authorities, as the department shall approve for this purpose; provided, however, that neither the department nor the medical school shall conduct such analysis unless it is satisfied that the analysis submitted to it is to be used in connection with the enforcement of law.

(b) A certificate by a chemist or analyst or other designated employee of the department or of the University of Massachusetts medical school of the result of the chemist's or analyst's or other designated employee's analysis, signed and sworn to by that chemist or analyst or other designated employee, shall be prima facie evidence of the composition, quality and, when appropriate, net weight of the substance or any mixture containing the substance.

(c) A signed certificate of drug analysis furnished by an analyst, assistant analyst or other designated employee of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States Department of Justice which conforms with the requirements of this section shall be prima facie evidence of the composition, quality and, when appropriate, net weight of the substance or any mixture containing the substance.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 923 N.E.2d 524 (Mass. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 923 N.E.2d 524 (Mass. 2010). · cites it 2× “, dissenting in part and concurring in part), that the only direct evidence that the white powder purchased or seized was cocaine, namely, uncontroverted scientific evidence that the Legislature has declared to be prima facie proof that the powder is cocaine, see G. L. c. 22C, §…”

Bridgeman v. Dist. Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 67 N.E.3d 673 (Mass. 2017). · cites it 2× “139, § 56 (replacing G. L. c. 22C, § 39); St. 2012, c. 139, § 107 (repealing G.”

Commonwealth v. Scott, 5 N.E.3d 530 (Mass. 2014). “139, § 56 (replacing G. L. c. 22C, § 39); St. 2012, c. 139, § 107 (repealing G.”

Commonwealth v. Verde, 827 N.E.2d 701 (Mass. 2005). “Additionally, the certificate is admissible only as prima *284 facie evidence of the composition, quality, and weight of the substance, G. L. c. 22C, § 39, which a defendant may rebut if he doubts its correctness, as the defendant did in this case.”

Commonwealth v. Francis, 54 N.E.3d 485 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 2× “Here, drug certificates signed by Dookhan as an assistant analyst were admitted in evidence under G. L. c. 22C, § 39, without the testimony of Dookhan or any other analyst that declared that the substances in question were cocaine and that set forth their net weight.”

Commonwealth v. Maloney, 855 N.E.2d 765 (Mass. 2006). “, G. L. c. 22C, § 39 (certificate of chemical analysis of narcotics is prima facie evidence of composition, quality, and weight); G.”

Commonwealth v. Villella, 657 N.E.2d 237 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995). “Even if the defendant had been able at trial to substantiate this representation with proof and to demonstrate its probative value, the appropriate remedy would not have been to strike the certificates but to allow this evidence to be introduced at trial to rebut the prima facie…”

Commonwealth v. Torres, 905 N.E.2d 101 (Mass. 2009). “See G. L. c. 22C, § 39; G. L. c. 111, § 13. There is no indication in the record that juror no.”

Commonwealth v. Paine, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 432 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, although drug certificates ordinarily would constitute prima facie evidence of the composition of a drug, see G. L. c. 22C, § 39, the certificates in this case state only that “[t]he tablets were consistent in markings and appearance” with a class E substance.”

State v. Davis, 688 S.E.2d 829 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). “Mass. Gen. L. ch. 22C, § 39. The Supreme Court held that these certificates, which it described as “quite plainly affidavits,” were testimonial statements because they were made under oath and under circumstances which would lead an objective witness to believe that the…”

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 918 N.E.2d 871 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009). “111, § 13, and contained the chemist’s certificate required by G. L. c. 22C, § 39. The results of analysis of the substances seized in the apartment are summarized as follows.”

Commonwealth v. Ramsey, 949 N.E.2d 927 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011). “See G. L. c. 22C, § 39. Because Mendes concluded that the error in admission of the certificates was not harmless even after taking the defendant’s testimony into consideration, its pronouncement regarding the inappropriateness of considering that evidence may well be viewed as…”

Show all 17 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.