Commonwealth v. Rogers

Wayne Rogers appeals from his conviction of possession of a class B substance with intent to distribute. See G. L. c. 94C, § 32A(a ).2 On appeal, he contends that: (1) a Commonwealth witness offered lay opinion as to constructive possession; (2) the Commonwealth's expert testified to negative profiling evidence; and (3) the prosecutor misstated the evidence in closing argument. We affirm.

Officer Kaplan testified that he focused his search on "the room that I was in, I believe, being Mr. Wayne Rogers'." Passing on whether the reference to the room constituted a lay opinion as to constructive…