463 Mass. 353 - Appellee Commonwealth Brief - Mass Cases

medical examiner, the "premise of the defense" factor
was crucial because the cause of death was "very much a
disputed issue") with Commonwealth v. Diaz, 453 Mass.
266, 274 (2009) (inadmissible post-Miranda denial of
accusation was harmless where "the premise of the
defense was misidentification.").
To conclude, this Honorable Court has consistently
taught that appellate courts should employ all of the
Degraca/Mahdi factors in determining harmless error.
This approach to constitutional harmless error analysis
has been oft-tested and not found wanting. The multi­
factor approach, by its nature, is adaptable to myriad
factual circumstances in such a way as to promote sound
results in particular cases. There is no reason to
stray from our well-established legal standards in the
context of reviewing Melendez-Diaz errors. The Chapman
standard calls for a reviewing Court to examine "the
totality of the record before us, weighing the properly
admitted and the improperly admitted evidence
together," and in light of the entire record to
determine whether "we are satisfied beyond a reasonable
doubt that the tainted evidence did not have an effect
on the jury and did not contribute to the jury's
verdicts." Tyree, 455 Mass. at 701. The Mahdi/Degraca
27