OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer Unlicensed Riding Motor Vehicle
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer Unlicensed Riding Motor Vehicle
Commonwealth v. Victory
Facts:
Defendant appealed his conviction by the Norfolk Court (Massachusetts) for violating Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 10, (as amended by 1923 Mass. Act ch. 464, § 4, 1929 Mass. Act ch. 262), in that he, being a person licensed to operate motor vehicles, was riding with and accompanying an unlicensed operator, who was operating the motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the evidence supported defendant’s conviction?
Discussion:
Defendant excepted to the trial court’s rulings. On appeal, the court held that the evidence supported defendant’s conviction, but sustained his exceptions. The court held that the trial court’s charge to the jury improperly conveyed the impression that they could find defendant guilty even if he believed that his associate was duly licensed. The instructions were misleading and prejudicial to defendant’s rights. The jury was instructed that the burden was on defendant to ascertain whether his associate’s license was in effect at the time mentioned, and that if, in fact, the purported license had expired and defendant accompanied him, defendant would be liable under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 10. The instruction as given was based upon a wrong interpretation of the statute. Unless defendant had knowledge that his associate was not licensed as an operator, there did not exist the situation contemplated by § 10 of an unlicensed operator accompanied by a licensed operator, and it was immaterial what effort defendant made to ascertain the validity of the associate’s purported license. The court sustained defendant’s exceptions.
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 Offender Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Procedural Safeguards Lawyers Essex County
OUI Offender Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Procedural Safeguards Lawyers Essex County
Commonwealth v. Philip
Facts:
Defendant appealed the judgment entered in the District Court of Essex (Massachusetts), after a jury convicted defendant on the charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, second offense, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1).
OUI Offender Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Procedural Safeguards Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the defendant was sentenced as a second offender without the necessary procedural safeguards?
Discussions:
Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, second offense. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court violated his due process rights by not affording him the opportunity to exercise his right to a separate trial on that portion of the charge alleging a second and subsequent offense. The commonwealth argued the language of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 11A, provided defendant was entitled to a separate trial only if he plead not guilty to the second or subsequent offense. The court vacated that portions of the judgment that stated defendant was found guilty of having committed a second offense of operating under the influence of alcohol and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not find the commonwealth’s argument convincing because, while defendant may waive a jury trial on a prior offense, there were certain procedures that should accompany such a waiver, including an informed colloquy between the judge and defendant. Further, the court noted the problem in the present case was that it appeared from the docket that defendant was sentenced as a second offender without the necessary procedural safeguards.
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 Arrest Massachusetts Unlawful Authority Lawyers Essex County
OUI Arrest Massachusetts Unlawful Authority Lawyers Essex County
Commonwealth v. Joseph
Facts:
Defendant filed an appeal from the decision of the Essex County (Massachusetts), which convicted him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
OUI Arrest Massachusetts Unlawful Authority Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the defendant’s arrest was lawful because a deputy sheriff arrested him without authority to do so?
Discussion:
Defendant was operating a motor vehicle on a public way when he saw flashing blue lights behind him. He pulled his car to the side of the road. A deputy sheriff dressed in a uniform and conspicuously displaying a badge came to the driver’s window and asked for defendant’s license and registration. About three minutes later a police officer arrived, and took him into custody after defendant failed field sobriety tests. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging that his arrest was illegal. The court denied his motion, and he challenged the decision. The court affirmed and held that the authority of a deputy sheriff to make the arrest was recognized by statute. An officer “authorized to make arrests” who was in uniform or conspicuously displayed his badge of office may arrest without a warrant any person who the officer had probable cause to believe had operated or was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 21. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which convicted defendant of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor
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 Alcohol Influence Evidence Testimony Lawyers Hampden County
OUI Massachusetts Alcohol Influence Evidence Testimony Lawyers Hampden County
Commonwealth v. Brown
Facts:
The District Court Department (Massachusetts) convicted defendant of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, fourth offense, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1) (2003). Defendant appealed.
OUI Massachusetts Alcohol Influence Evidence Testimony Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the commonwealth can produce certified copies of each prior conviction?
Discussions:
Defendant argued that the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to prove that he had committed the prior offenses. The appellate court found that, contrary to defendant’s argument, former Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(4) did not restrict expressly the evidence sufficient to prove prior offenses. The records presented by the Commonwealth sufficiently proved the prior convictions. The Commonwealth was not required to introduce certified copies of each prior conviction. “Live witness” testimony was not required to prove that defendant was the party convicted in the court records introduced. Former Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(4) did not state that, because two types of proof were named, nothing else could have been used. It said only that this was one way to meet the burden of proof for penalty enhancement. Evidence was admitted at trial of prior “like” offenses, which was sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that there were, in fact, three prior offenses. Proof was also admitted that was sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the defendant was the person who was convicted of these offenses.
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 Intoxicate Driving Liquor Lawyers Middlesex County
OUI Massachusetts Intoxicate Driving Liquor Lawyers Middlesex County
COMMONWEALTH V. ASHWARINA
Facts:
Defendant sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Middlesex County (Massachusetts), which convicted him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The defendant having been tried and convicted on a complaint under G.L. c. 90, § 24, argued that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that he could not have been found guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor unless the jury found that he was actually driving in a manner different from the way he would have driven if he had not had any intoxicating liquor; and if his manner of driving was that of a sober, careful man, he could not have been found guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor
OUI Massachusetts Intoxicate Driving Liquor Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in convicting the defendant for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor?
Discussion:
This court held that defendant’s arguments are without merit. The only statement in the record as to the testimony was that in addition to other evidence, there was evidence that when seen by the witnesses at the place of the accident within half an hour thereafter, defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Therefore, the court assumed that the jury could have found that the charge in the complaint was proven. The Commonwealth was not required to prove that defendant was drunk. It was wholly immaterial whether defendant exercised due care to avoid injury to other travellers, and he could have been convicted even if there were no travellers on the street.
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.
Massachusetts Breath Test Criminal Charge OUI Operating Influence Lawyers Attorneys
The State did not violate federal and state double jeopardy protections by suspending defendant’s license for refusing to submit to a breath test and later bringing criminal charges for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
An OUI offense is a very serious crime in Massachusetts.
The Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI attorneys can defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Our Massachusetts OUI lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Contact a Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI lawyer in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts OUI Operating Influence Proceedings Lawyers Attorneys
Defendant’s conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor was properly remanded for further proceedings concerning the subsequent offense portion of the complaint, as the trial judge failed to follow the bifurcated hearing procedure required by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 11A.
An OUI offense is a very serious crime in Massachusetts.
The Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI attorneys can defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Our Massachusetts OUI lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Contact a Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI lawyer in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts OUI Operating Influence Breath Sample Lawyers Attorneys
Pursuant to 501 Mass. Code Regs. 2.57, only the lower of two breath sample results was admissible in defendant’s trial for operating motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor because the regulation by the Secretary of Public Safety reasonably related to Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 24K, the statute regarding breath test results.
An OUI offense is a very serious crime in Massachusetts.
The Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI attorneys can defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Our Massachusetts OUI lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Contact a Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI lawyer in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts OUI Double Jeopardy Breath Test Lawyers Attorney
In a case involving operating under the influence of alcohol the State did not violate federal and state double jeopardy protections by suspending defendant’s license for refusing to submit to a breath test and later bringing criminal charges for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
An OUI offense is a very serious crime in Massachusetts.
The Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI attorneys can defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Our Massachusetts OUI lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Contact a Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI lawyer in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts OUI Harmless Error Lawyers Attorney
Conviction for operating motor vehicle after license had been revoked was affirmed where, although extraneous entries contained in notices should have been redacted, error was harmless in light of overwhelming evidence against defendant.
An OUI offense is a very serious crime in Massachusetts.
The Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI attorneys can defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Our Massachusetts OUI lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Contact a Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI lawyer in Massachusetts.
8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Midnight
