Operating Under Influence Somerville Massachusetts Lawyer Fourth Offense
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.
OUI Dukes Massachusetts Jurisdiction Evidence Speeding Collision Lawyer
OUI Dukes Massachusetts Jurisdiction Evidence Speeding Collision Lawyer
Commonwealth v. Max
Facts:
At the conclusion of a bifurcated trial in the Superior Court Department (Massachusetts), defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, seventh offense, under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1); operating to endanger under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 24(2)(a); and operating after revocation of his license under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 23. Defendant appealed.
OUI Dukes Massachusetts Jurisdiction Evidence Speeding Collision Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the motion judge abused her discretion by denying defendant’s request to renew the motion to suppress?
Discussions:
Defendant challenged the pretrial denial of his motion to suppress, contending that the motion judge improperly applied the doctrine of inevitable discovery and abused her discretion by denying defendant’s request to renew the motion to suppress. Defendant argued that the officer who stopped his vehicle lacked jurisdictional authority to stop him in another town and that the substantial incriminating evidence resulting from the stop should have been inadmissible because neither statutory nor common-law sources permitted an extraterritorially stop under the circumstances. The appellate court found no error, noting that defendant at excessive speed drove into an oncoming lane and forced the first police cruiser to drive off the road in order to avoid a head-on collision. The officer began pursuit and directed his dispatcher to inform a neighboring town of the chase and need for assistance. The officer forced defendant to pull over after a short chase and took defendant’s keys and driver’s license. As he did so, the officer from the neighboring town, where the stop occurred, took over. Those facts established the practical certainty of discovery of defendant by the second officer.
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.
Article written by A Sris
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.
OUI License Massachusetts Revocation Inevitable Discovery Attorneys Norfolk County
OUI License Massachusetts Revocation Inevitable Discovery Attorneys Norfolk County
Commonwealth v. Lawrence
Facts:
At the conclusion of a bifurcated trial in the Superior Court Department (Massachusetts), defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, seventh offense, under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1); operating to endanger under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 24(2)(a); and operating after revocation of his license under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 23. Defendant appealed.
OUI License Massachusetts Revocation Inevitable Discovery Attorneys Norfolk County
Issue:
- Whether the motion judge improperly applied the doctrine of inevitable discovery?
Discussions:
Defendant challenged the pretrial denial of his motion to suppress, contending that the motion judge improperly applied the doctrine of inevitable discovery and abused her discretion by denying defendant’s request to renew the motion to suppress. Defendant argued that the officer who stopped his vehicle lacked jurisdictional authority to stop him in another town and that the substantial incriminating evidence resulting from the stop should have been inadmissible because neither statutory nor common-law sources permitted an extraterritorially stop under the circumstances. The appellate court found no error, noting that defendant at excessive speed drove into an oncoming lane and forced the first police cruiser to drive off the road in order to avoid a head-on collision. The officer began pursuit and directed his dispatcher to inform a neighboring town of the chase and need for assistance. The officer forced defendant to pull over after a short chase and took defendant’s keys and driver’s license. As he did so, the officer from the neighboring town, where the stop occurred, took over. Those facts established the practical certainty of discovery of defendant by the second officer
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.
Article written by A Sris
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.
OUI Vehicle Massachusetts License Revocation Discovery Essex County
OUI Vehicle Massachusetts License Revocation Discovery Essex County
Commonwealth v. Victor
Facts:
At the conclusion of a bifurcated trial in the Essex Superior Court Department (Massachusetts), defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, seventh offense, under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1); operating to endanger under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 24(2)(a); and operating after revocation of his license under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 23. Defendant appealed.
OUI Vehicle Massachusetts License Revocation Discovery
Issue:
- Whether judge improperly applied the doctrine of inevitable discovery and abused the decision?
Discussions:
Defendant challenged the pretrial denial of his motion to suppress, contending that the motion judge improperly applied the doctrine of inevitable discovery and abused her discretion by denying defendant’s request to renew the motion to suppress. Defendant argued that the officer who stopped his vehicle lacked jurisdictional authority to stop him in another town and that the substantial incriminating evidence resulting from the stop should have been inadmissible because neither statutory nor common-law sources permitted an extraterritorially stop under the circumstances. The appellate court found no error, noting that defendant at excessive speed drove into an oncoming lane and forced the first police cruiser to drive off the road in order to avoid a head-on collision. The officer began pursuit and directed his dispatcher to inform a neighboring town of the chase and need for assistance. The officer forced defendant to pull over after a short chase and took defendant’s keys and driver’s license. As he did so, the officer from the neighboring town, where the stop occurred, took over. Those facts established the practical certainty of discovery of defendant by the second officer.
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.
Article written by A Sris
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.
OUI Massachusetts Prior Conviction Bifurcated Trial Attorneys Middlesex County
OUI Massachusetts Prior Conviction Bifurcated Trial Attorneys Middlesex County
Commonwealth v. Walter
Facts:
Defendant appealed a judgment by the trial court (Massachusetts) that convicted him of operating under the influence (OUI), fourth offense.
OUI Massachusetts Prior Conviction Bifurcated Trial Attorneys
Issue:
- Whether the evidence of defendant’s prior OUI convictions can reach the jury as part of the first phase of the bifurcated trial?
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.
Article written by A Sris
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.
8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Midnight
