Massachusetts Appeals Court Vacates Convictions in Commonwealth v. Clemente: Improper Admission of Prior Convictions in a Brockton Drug Case
Introduction
Drug prosecutions in Massachusetts often turn on evidence of intent. When police find small amounts of narcotics, the question becomes: were they for personal use, or was there intent to distribute? Prosecutors frequently try to answer that question by pointing to “prior bad acts” or old convictions. But Massachusetts law sets strict limits on when such evidence can be used.
A recent Appeals Court decision, Commonwealth v. Julius E. Clemente (No. 24-P-480, Aug. 22, 2025), underscores just how high those limits are. In that case, a Brockton man’s convictions for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl were vacated because the trial judge allowed the jury to hear about his prior convictions. The panel found that the evidence amounted to nothing more than impermissible propensity evidence—evidence that unfairly suggested “once a drug dealer, always a drug dealer.”
For anyone facing charges of drug distribution or trafficking in Massachusetts, this decision highlights why you need an experienced Brockton drug defense lawyer or Massachusetts criminal defense attorney for drug charges who knows how to challenge improper evidence.
The Case Against Julius Clemente
The Search in Brockton
On April 16, 2021, ATF agents and Brockton Police executed a search warrant at Clemente’s Brockton apartment after an investigation into firearms and drug trafficking. Clemente was the only person present.
The apartment had three bedrooms. In one bedroom (bedroom two), police forced entry and found:
A digital scale
Four baggies of white powder (fentanyl and cocaine) totaling about 9.19 grams
A nightstand containing baggies, mail in Clemente’s name, and notebooks identified as drug ledgers
In another bedroom (bedroom three), officers discovered:
A baggie with four grams of fentanyl
A green leafy substance
Documents linking the room to Clemente, including his daughter’s birth certificate
Ammunition in a bureau
Elsewhere in the apartment, officers found a box of ammunition, a firearm lock, and a spent shell casing.
During booking, Clemente overheard an officer say he was being charged with “trafficking in fentanyl.” He reportedly asked how that was possible since “the bag only weighed four grams”. Prosecutors later argued this statement showed knowledge of the drugs.
The Charges
Although Clemente was originally indicted for trafficking in a Class A substance (fentanyl), the jury convicted him of the lesser offense:
Possession with intent to distribute a Class A substance (fentanyl and cocaine)
In a jury-waived trial that followed, he was convicted of the subsequent offense enhancement.
The key issue at trial was whether Clemente intended to distribute the narcotics, or whether they were simply for personal use.
The Commonwealth’s Use of Prior Convictions
To bolster its case, the Commonwealth introduced Clemente’s 2018 convictions for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl.
Back then, Brockton police had searched the same apartment and found small amounts of fentanyl (0.083 grams and 0.4 grams in separate incidents), digital scales, and baggies. Clemente had pleaded guilty.
At the 2021 trial, the prosecution presented:
Testimony from an officer involved in the 2018 searches
Redacted audio of Clemente’s plea colloquy
Certified docket sheets of the prior convictions
The trial judge allowed the evidence, instructing the jury that it could only consider the prior convictions for the limited purpose of intent—not to conclude Clemente was a bad person or had a criminal propensity.
Despite these instructions, the Appeals Court later found that the admission of the prior convictions was improper and unfairly prejudicial.
Why the Appeals Court Reversed
The Rule Against Propensity Evidence
Massachusetts law is clear: prosecutors cannot use prior convictions simply to argue that a defendant has a bad character or a tendency to commit crime. As the Appeals Court put it:
“Generally, evidence of a defendant's prior misconduct may not be admitted to show bad character or propensity to commit the crime charged.”
Prior convictions can sometimes be admitted for other purposes—such as proving identity, intent, or a common scheme—but only if there is a strong logical connection between the prior conduct and the charged offense.
The Problem in Clemente’s Case
In Clemente, the panel concluded that the prior convictions were introduced for no other reason than to suggest that because Clemente sold drugs before, he must have intended to sell them again. The court wrote:
“The prior convictions were admitted to demonstrate that three years prior to possessing a modest amount of controlled substances in his bedroom, the defendant had likewise possessed a modest amount of the same controlled substance in his bedroom; that the defendant admitted in the earlier case to possessing that controlled substance with intent to distribute it; and thus the jury should conclude that he likewise must have had the same intent in this instance. This constitutes propensity evidence.”
The Appeals Court distinguished this case from Commonwealth v. Gollman, where prior drug sales were admitted because they involved nearly identical methods and circumstances. In Clemente’s case, there were no such distinctive similarities—just the general fact that both incidents involved drugs in a bedroom.
Prejudice Outweighed Probative Value
The Appeals Court also stressed that the amounts of drugs recovered in 2021 were relatively small. That made the question of intent especially close. Introducing old convictions risked tipping the scales unfairly. The prosecutor compounded the problem by repeatedly referring to the prior convictions in closing arguments.
Even though the trial judge gave limiting instructions, the Appeals Court held they were not enough to cure the prejudice.
Result: Clemente’s convictions were vacated and the case remanded.
Other Issues Raised
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Clemente also argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent to distribute. The Appeals Court rejected this, noting that prosecutors had introduced:
Individually packaged baggies of drugs
Scales and packaging materials
Ledgers documenting drug sales
Lack of paraphernalia for personal use
Clemente’s admission to selling marijuana
Taken together, this evidence was enough for the jury to infer intent to distribute.
Search Warrant Challenge
Clemente claimed the search warrant lacked probable cause connecting alleged criminal activity to his home. The Appeals Court disagreed. The warrant affidavit, which detailed extensive ATF surveillance, text messages about firearms trafficking, and connections to the Brockton apartment, provided a sufficient nexus.
Thus, while the conviction was reversed for evidentiary reasons, the search was upheld as lawful.
Lessons for Massachusetts Drug Defense
1. Prior Convictions Are Not Automatic
The Appeals Court’s decision is a reminder that old convictions cannot simply be trotted out at trial to make a new case look stronger. Unless the prior offense bears a highly distinctive similarity to the new charge, it risks being deemed improper propensity evidence.
2. Limiting Instructions Aren’t Always Enough
Judges often believe that instructing juries to use prior conviction evidence “for intent only” solves the problem. But as Clemente shows, the Appeals Court will still reverse if the prejudice is too high.
3. Small Amounts of Drugs Require Careful Proof
When police find only small quantities of narcotics, prosecutors must rely on surrounding evidence—like baggies, scales, ledgers, or statements. Defense attorneys should challenge whether those items really prove distribution beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Search Warrants Still Hold Power
Even though Clemente won on evidentiary grounds, the court affirmed the validity of the search warrant. This shows how hard it is to defeat a warrant once a magistrate has signed it, unless the affidavit is clearly deficient.
Implications for Defendants in Brockton and Beyond
Brockton, like many Massachusetts cities, sees frequent prosecutions for drug distribution. This decision will influence trial judges in Plymouth County and throughout the Commonwealth when prosecutors try to use prior bad acts.
For defendants, it is a powerful precedent showing that convictions can be overturned if the Commonwealth crosses the line.
For defense attorneys, it reinforces the importance of filing motions in limine to exclude prior convictions, objecting during trial, and preserving the issue for appeal.
SEO-Optimized FAQ Section
Q: Can prosecutors always use my old convictions against me in a new drug case?
A: No. As Commonwealth v. Clemente shows, prior convictions cannot be admitted just to prove you are likely guilty again. They are only allowed in limited circumstances.
Q: What if the police only found a small amount of drugs?
A: Small amounts often suggest personal use. Prosecutors must prove intent to distribute with additional evidence. A skilled Massachusetts drug trafficking defense lawyer can challenge whether that proof exists.
Q: Can my case be appealed if the jury heard about prior convictions?
A: Yes. If prior convictions were admitted improperly, an appeal may lead to a new trial, just as in Clemente’s case.
Q: How harsh are Massachusetts drug penalties?
A: Very. Possession with intent to distribute fentanyl carries mandatory minimum sentences. A conviction can mean years in state prison.
Q: Why should I hire a Brockton drug defense lawyer?
A: Local knowledge matters. A Brockton criminal defense attorney for drug charges understands the judges, prosecutors, and procedures in Plymouth County, giving you the strongest possible defense.
Conclusion and Call to Action
Commonwealth v. Clemente is a major reminder that Massachusetts courts take the rules of evidence seriously. Convictions cannot rest on “once guilty, always guilty” logic. Every defendant deserves a trial based on the evidence in their case—not their past.
If you or a loved one is facing drug charges in Brockton, Boston, or anywhere in Massachusetts, you need a dedicated defense team. At Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we fight to suppress unlawful evidence, challenge improper convictions, and protect your rights at trial and on appeal.