OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer Safety Erratic Speed

Commonwealth v. Williams Park

Facts:

The defendant was convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. G. L. c. 90, § 24. The judge instructed the jury in the manner then approved. The jury was told that defendant could have been under the influence when the intake was so small that it did not impair any physical or mental faculty. Defense counsel had not objected to the charge. Four months later the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in another case, rejected that concept of the offense, holding that the crime under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24 was not made out unless defendant’s consumption of alcohol diminished defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. Defendant had acknowledged having had beer and wine to drink while at a family holiday dinner; but that had been at midday, and it was 7:15 P.M. when his van was stopped for running a red light. His explanation for running the light was plausible, and there was no other evidence relating to speeding, erratic operation, or the like. His Breathalyzer reading was .08 percent. Defendant appealed from the judgment of a trial court (Massachusetts), which convicted him of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24.

OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer

Issue:

• Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that conviction was warranted if defendant was influenced “in some perceptible degree” by intoxicating liquor, regardless of whether it impaired his ability to drive safely?

Discussion:

This court held that there is a substantial likelihood that the jury may have been influenced in its verdict by the erroneous description of the elements of the offense. The defendant acknowledged having had beer and wine to drink. His explanation for running the light was plausible (though not for that reason excusable); there was no other evidence relating to speeding, erratic operation, or the like. When the police lights were activated, the defendant pulled to the roadside immediately, produced his license and registration, and was generally cooperative. While the arresting officer testified that the defendant showed symptoms of intoxication and failed a field sobriety test, the breathalyzer reading was .08 percent, in the range to which the statute attaches no presumption, either of sobriety or intoxication. On all the evidence the jury might well have concluded that the defendant was influenced by alcohol “to a perceptible degree” but had a reasonable doubt that alcohol had impaired his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. In the circumstances there is a substantial likelihood that the jury may have been influenced in its verdict by the erroneous description of the elements of the offense. The evidence presented a genuine question of guilt or innocence, and counsel’s failure to object to the charge was clearly not tactical. In the interests of justice this court held that there should be a new trial on the charge of driving under the influence at which the defendant will have the benefit of jury instructions correctly describing the elements of the offense.

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.