Operating Under Influence Somerville Massachusetts Lawyer Fourth Offense

Commonwealth v. Welch

Facts:

Defendant appealed a judgment by the trial court (Massachusetts) that convicted him of operating under the influence (OUI), fourth offense.

Operating Under Influence Somerville Massachusetts Lawyer

Issue:

• Whether Defendant’s refusal to answer booking questions and his reference to wanting a lawyer were irrelevant and inadmissible?

Discussions:

Neither the parties nor the trial court intended that evidence of defendant’s prior OUI convictions reach the jury as part of the first phase of his bifurcated trial. However, the jury learned of them when a copy of a medical subpoena was inadvertently included in an exhibit intended only to contain defendant’s medical records. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial, which the trial court denied, electing instead to remove the subpoena, give a curative instruction, and order the jurors to resume deliberations. Approximately five minutes later, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The appellate court found, inter alia, that although the error might have been palliated somewhat by the trial court’s curative instruction, the fact that the jury focused on the information, and the timing of the verdict, left it unconvinced that no harm resulted. Defendant’s refusal to answer booking questions and his reference to wanting a lawyer were irrelevant and inadmissible. The combination of errors created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice such that reversal was required.

The Gilmore & Sris Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your OUI case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your OUI case.

A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your OUI case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.