Commonwealth v. Bernardino Lopez: What This Massachusetts Drug Case Means for Future Defendants
At Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we stay on the cutting edge of Massachusetts criminal law to protect the rights of our clients facing serious drug charges. In July 2025, the Massachusetts Appeals Court handed down a significant ruling in Commonwealth v. Bernardino Lopez, No. 24-P-494, that could impact how drug crime cases—especially those involving fentanyl and cocaine—are tried in the Boston area and beyond.
This blog post breaks down the court’s decision and explains how it may affect you or a loved one if you’re facing drug distribution or possession charges. Whether you’ve been charged with possession of fentanyl in Boston, accused of distributing narcotics in Suffolk County, or are under investigation for a controlled substance offense anywhere in Massachusetts, this case has important implications for your defense.
Understanding the Facts in Commonwealth v. Lopez
Bernardino Lopez was arrested in May 2021 following a police surveillance operation in Lawrence, Massachusetts. Officers were monitoring a parking lot known for suspected drug activity when they observed a group congregating near a box truck. Lopez joined the group and was seen retrieving a brown bag from underneath the truck bumper. The bag contained a pill bottle, which Lopez appeared to hand off to a middleman who then made a hand-to-hand exchange with a third person (the “buyer”).
When officers approached, the middleman tossed the brown bag into a bush. Inside the bag, police found the pill bottle, which contained 28 bags of cocaine and 4 bags of fentanyl. The buyer was later arrested and found in possession of two plastic bags containing fentanyl.
Lopez was charged with distribution of fentanyl under G. L. c. 94C, § 32(a), and possession of cocaine under G. L. c. 94C, § 34. He was convicted at trial and appealed, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to prove he knew the substances were distinct controlled substances—an argument the Appeals Court ultimately rejected.
Key Legal Takeaways: What the Court Decided
The central issue in Commonwealth v. Lopez was whether prosecutors must prove that a defendant knew they were handling two different types of drugs—in this case, cocaine and fentanyl—when charging them with separate drug offenses.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled they do not. It reaffirmed long-standing precedent: the Commonwealth only needs to prove the defendant knew he possessed a controlled substance—not which one, or how many different ones.
This ruling is critical for defendants because it expands the reach of drug prosecution. Even if you don’t know exactly what you’re holding—or that there’s more than one drug involved—you can still be convicted of distribution or possession.
Why This Case Matters for Boston Drug Crime Defense
As seasoned Boston drug crime attorneys, we’ve defended hundreds of clients charged with crimes like possession with intent to distribute, trafficking, and drug conspiracy. What Commonwealth v. Lopez shows is that Massachusetts courts will permit convictions even when there’s no direct evidence that the defendant knew the precise nature of the drug.
That creates serious risks for anyone accused of:
Possession of fentanyl or heroin
Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute
Multi-substance drug charges (e.g., fentanyl and methamphetamine)
Drug offenses involving "cutting agents" or disguised substances
Distribution through intermediaries or in "joint possession" situations
If you’ve been charged with a drug crime in Boston, Dorchester, Roxbury, or anywhere in Suffolk County, it’s vital to retain an experienced criminal defense lawyer who understands the nuances of constructive possession, circumstantial evidence, and the legal standard for knowledge.
Constructive Possession and Knowledge: The Legal Standard
In Massachusetts, to convict someone of possession of a controlled substance, the Commonwealth must prove three elements:
The substance was a controlled substance.
The defendant had actual or constructive possession.
The defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed it.
To prove distribution, the Commonwealth must show:
The substance was a controlled substance.
The defendant distributed it to someone else.
The defendant did so knowingly or intentionally.
In Lopez, the defendant argued that because he didn’t know the pill bottle contained both fentanyl and cocaine, he couldn’t be convicted of both distribution and possession.
But the Appeals Court said that’s not required under Massachusetts law. It is enough for the prosecution to show that Lopez knew he had a controlled substance, regardless of whether he knew its precise identity—or that more than one drug was involved.
What This Means for Future Drug Cases in Massachusetts
The decision in Commonwealth v. Lopez opens the door to broader liability in controlled substance prosecutions. It tells us several key things:
You can be convicted even if you don’t know which drug you had.
You can be convicted of multiple offenses for multiple substances, even if you didn’t know there were different drugs involved.
The court is willing to infer knowledge from circumstantial evidence, such as your actions, location, or use of a middleman.
This raises the stakes in every drug arrest. Police and prosecutors may assume that if drugs were nearby or if you looked “suspicious,” you must have known what was going on.
That’s why you need a strategic and aggressive defense—one that challenges every assumption, every inference, and every weak link in the government’s case.
Common Drug Crime Defenses in Light of Lopez
At Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, our Boston drug crime lawyers use every available defense to protect our clients. Even after Lopez, several strong defenses remain viable:
1. Lack of Knowledge
While the court reduced what the Commonwealth has to prove, they still must show that you knew something was a controlled substance. If you truly didn’t know—because you were a bystander, coerced, or unaware of the contents of a package—we can fight back.
2. Lack of Possession
Constructive possession requires more than proximity—it requires intent and ability to control the drugs. If drugs were found near you but not on you, we may argue there was no possession at all.
3. Entrapment or Improper Surveillance
If undercover officers or informants pushed you into a deal you wouldn’t have otherwise made, or if police surveillance was flawed or violated your rights, we may move to suppress the evidence.
4. Insufficient Chain of Custody or Drug Testing
We scrutinize how the drugs were handled, stored, and tested. If the evidence is compromised, we push for dismissal or acquittal.
The Dangers of Fentanyl and How They Influence Prosecution
Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid up to 50 times more potent than heroin, is at the heart of an overdose epidemic. Prosecutors are taking a zero-tolerance approach to fentanyl cases—even in small quantities or mixtures.
In Lopez, the court recognized the unique dangers of fentanyl mixed with other drugs like cocaine. That recognition may encourage prosecutors to pursue maximum penalties, even when the defendant didn’t know fentanyl was present.
This is especially concerning in cases involving street drugs, where users or low-level couriers may not know what's in the bag. Yet they can still face serious felony convictions and mandatory minimum sentences.
Why You Need a Boston Drug Crimes Attorney Now
The risk of conviction and incarceration is too high to face alone. If you’ve been charged with any of the following, contact our office immediately:
Possession of fentanyl
Possession with intent to distribute
Distribution of cocaine, heroin, or meth
Drug trafficking
Drug conspiracy or joint venture
Operating a drug enterprise
Possession in a school zone
Our Boston-area criminal defense lawyers have decades of combined experience fighting drug charges in Suffolk, Essex, Norfolk, and Middlesex counties. We know how to challenge illegal searches, questionable surveillance, faulty lab testing, and unreliable witnesses.
Whether your case involves street-level distribution, undercover buys, or search warrants, we will fight for your rights, your record, and your freedom.
Charged with a Drug Crime in Boston? We Can Help.
The Appeals Court’s ruling in Commonwealth v. Bernardino Lopez reinforces the need for a strategic, detail-oriented defense. Massachusetts prosecutors are aggressively pursuing drug crimes—and the law is not always on the side of fairness or common sense.
If you’re being investigated or have been arrested for drug distribution or possession, don’t wait. Contact Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP today for a free, confidential consultation with a skilled Boston drug crime lawyer.