Commonwealth v. Pittman

In his brief, the defendant argues that the judge’s instructions on the firearms charge were incomplete or confusing. An additional issue, addressed by both counsel in letters pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 16(1), as amended, 386 Mass. 1247 *906(1982), and at oral argument, is whether a new trial is required because of the admission of a ballistics certificate in violation of the defendant’s right of confrontation.1 See Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009). We affirm.

1. Jury instructions. The defendant contends that the judge did not adequately instruct the jury on the concept of…