Appeals Court Reverses Firearm Convictions in Commonwealth v. Brooks (2025): When the Commonwealth Fails to Prove Lack of a License
Overview
In an unpublished Rule 23.0 memorandum and order, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed two firearm-related convictions in Commonwealth v. Laqwon Brooks (25-P-621, Oct. 31, 2025). The panel concluded that the Commonwealth’s proof was insufficient to establish that the defendant lacked a firearms license—a necessary element of both charges under G.L. c. 269, § 10(h).
Although this decision is not binding precedent, it reinforces the practical effect of the Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling in Commonwealth v. Smith, 496 Mass. 304 (2025): the Commonwealth must present reliable, individualized evidence that a defendant did not hold a valid license to carry or Firearms Identification (FID) card. Merely showing that a database search came up empty is not enough.
The Facts and Holding
After a December 2023 jury trial, Mr. Brooks was convicted of:
Possession of a firearm without an FID card; and
Possession of ammunition without an FID card.
The Commonwealth’s proof of “lack of licensure” rested solely on the testimony of Phil Dowd, an employee of the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services. Dowd testified that he searched the state firearms-licensing database using the name “Laqwon Brooks” and a birth date of March 3, 1990, finding no record of a license.
The Appeals Court found two fatal flaws in that evidence:
No proof of the defendant’s date of birth.
The Commonwealth never introduced evidence confirming that Brooks’s date of birth was in fact March 3, 1990. Without that link, Dowd’s testimony carried “vanishingly slight” probative value—mirroring the SJC’s reasoning in Smith, where the same witness’s search was deemed meaningless absent proof of the defendant’s true birth date.No proof of how the name was spelled in the search.
The panel noted that the probative value of any database search depends on both the accuracy of the birth date and the spelling of the name entered. Here, Dowd never testified how he spelled “Laqwon,” a name with multiple possible variations.
Given these evidentiary gaps, the Appeals Court reversed the judgments, set aside the verdicts, and remanded for entry of judgments of acquittal in favor of the defendant81-147-25.
Why the Decision Matters
Although the opinion is unpublished and issued under Appeals Court Rule 23.0, its reasoning tracks the binding SJC authority in Commonwealth v. Smith (2025) and Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666 (2023). It serves as a clear reminder that:
The burden is entirely on the Commonwealth to prove every element of a firearm-possession offense beyond a reasonable doubt, including the absence of licensure.
Licensing-database evidence must be tied to verified identifiers (name, date of birth, spelling, etc.) to carry any weight.
When the Commonwealth fails to introduce that evidence, a motion for a required finding of not guilty should be allowed.
Understanding the Limits of an Unpublished Decision
Rule 23.0 (formerly Rule 1:28) opinions, often called “summary decisions,” are primarily directed to the parties. They are not circulated to the entire Appeals Court and therefore represent only the views of the deciding panel. As such:
They may be cited for their persuasive value, but
They are not binding precedent in future cases.
See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
This means that while Brooks cannot be cited as controlling authority, it can be used to persuade trial judges or reinforce arguments based on Smith—especially when the prosecution’s proof of “no license” rests on incomplete or unverified database searches.
The Takeaway for Defense Attorneys
For Massachusetts defense lawyers, Brooks underscores the importance of scrutinizing the Commonwealth’s so-called “license check” evidence. When prosecutors rely on testimony from CJIS employees who search the database, counsel should:
Demand to know the exact identifiers used in the search (spelling, middle name, birth date, etc.);
Challenge the foundation and reliability of the search; and
Move for a required finding of not guilty if no competent evidence links the search parameters to the defendant.
Even in unpublished form, Brooks provides a practical blueprint for trial advocacy and a warning to prosecutors that shortcuts in proving lack of licensure will not withstand appellate review.
FAQ: Commonwealth v. Brooks (2025)
Q1: Is Commonwealth v. Brooks binding law?
No. It is an unpublished Rule 23.0 memorandum. It may be cited for persuasive purposes but is not precedential.
Q2: What did the Appeals Court decide?
It reversed firearm and ammunition convictions because the Commonwealth failed to prove the defendant lacked a valid license.
Q3: What case controlled the outcome?
The Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Smith, 496 Mass. 304 (2025), which addressed identical evidentiary failures.
Q4: Why was the Commonwealth’s evidence insufficient?
Because the witness searched the licensing database using an unverified birth date and an unconfirmed spelling of the defendant’s name.
Q5: What happens next for Mr. Brooks?
The case is remanded for entry of judgments of acquittal, fully vacating the convictions.
Legal Notice
This summary discusses an unpublished decision of the Massachusetts Appeals Court (Commonwealth v. Laqwon Brooks, 25-P-621, Oct. 31, 2025). Under M.A.C. Rule 23.0, such decisions are not binding precedent and should be cited only for their persuasive value.