OUI Norfolk County Massachusetts License Revoked Insufficient Evidence Lawyers
OUI Norfolk County Massachusetts License Revoked Insufficient Evidence Lawyers
Samson v. Bd. of Appeal on Motor Vehicle
Facts:
The Plaintiff driver’s previous charge of operating under the influence (OUI) had been continued without a finding of guilt (CWOF) and dismissed, pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 12(a) (2). The driver said it was error to consider the prior case a “conviction,” for purposes of the enhanced period of suspension in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f)(1). The enhanced suspension was properly applied because, when the legislature increased the penalties for drunk drivers, it intended a CWOF to trigger the enhanced suspension. Plaintiff driver appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles’ decision to suspend his license for three years, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f)(1), for refusing to submit to a Breathalyzer test. Defendant Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds affirmed the decision, and the driver sought judicial review, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30A, § 14, and moved for judgment on the pleadings, under Mass. R.Civ.P. 12(c).
OUI Norfolk County Massachusetts License Revoked Insufficient Evidence Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the court to consider the prior plaintiff driver’s case a “conviction,” for purposes of the enhanced period of suspension in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f)(1)?
Discussion:
The Board finds that the fact that the words “admission to sufficient facts” did not appear in the definition of “conviction” in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(d) did not require a different conclusion because the words did not have to be in the statute, since (1) it had been consistently held that a admission to sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty was treated as a plea of guilty, and (2) the legislature presumably knew of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 18, regarding a CWOF, and a judicial interpretation of an admission to sufficient facts as being tantamount to a guilty plea, when enacting Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(d). The driver’s motion was denied, the decision of the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (Board) was affirmed, and judgment was entered for the Board.
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 Revoked Insufficient Evidence Lawyers Norfolk County
OUI License Massachusetts Revoked Insufficient Evidence Lawyers Norfolk County
Commonwealth v. Joseph
Facts:
Defendant appealed the judgment of the Norfolk District Court Department (Massachusetts), which convicted defendant of violating Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 23, second para., by operating a motor vehicle after his license to operate had been revoked pursuant to a violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24, operating under the influence of liquor.
OUI License Massachusetts Revoked Insufficient Evidence Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial should have been bifurcated; whether the notices sent to Defendant from the Registry of Motor Vehicles (registry) informing him that his license had been revoked were inadmissible hearsay, or, in the alternative, should have been redacted prior to their being introduced in evidence; and Whether there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction?
Discussion:
Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle after his license to operate had been revoked. On appeal, defendant argued that: (1) the trial should have been bifurcated; (2) the notices sent informing him that his license had been revoked were inadmissible hearsay, or, in the alternative, should have been redacted prior to their being introduced in evidence; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. The appellate court advised that defendant was not charged with a subsequent offense of driving under the influence, but with an independent, freestanding crime. Specifically, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 23, second para., charged an independent crime, driving with a license suspended or revoked due to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence. In addition, while the appellate court agreed the extraneous entries contained in the notices should have been redacted, it found the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence against defendant. Finally, the Commonwealth was not required to introduce certified copies of defendant’s convictions to satisfy its burden of proof. The appellate court affirmed the judgment.
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 Blood Alcohol Hardship Hearing Lawyers New Hampshire County
OUI License Massachusetts Blood Alcohol Hardship Hearing Lawyers New Hampshire County
REGISTRY OF MOTOR VEHICLES V GEORGE
Facts:
Plaintiff’s driver’s license was suspended by the state of New Hampshire for failure to submit to a blood alcohol test and conviction for OUI. The registrar in Massachusetts revoked plaintiff’s license until the end of New Hampshire’s suspension.
OUI License Massachusetts Blood Alcohol Hardship Hearing Lawyers
Plaintiff appealed the decision of the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (Massachusetts) affirming the registrar’s suspension of plaintiff’s Massachusetts driver’s license.
Issue:
- Whether the Massachusetts law entitled the Plaintiff to a hardship hearing?
Discussion:
This court finds that the Plaintiff contentions (1) his license was improperly revoked without a hearing by the registrar (2) because the transcript of the hearing was not included in the administrative record, there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the decision and (3) that Massachusetts law entitled him to a hardship hearing. In response, the Board maintained that both substantial evidence and applicable law supported its decision. The court stated the board’s interpretation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 22(c), authorizing the registrar to suspend plaintiff’s license for a period equal to that allowed under New Hampshire law was reasonable. The court affirmed the decision of the board stating that plaintiff could not successfully argue that the lawful absence of a pre-termination hearing before the registrar entitled him to judgment on appeal.
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 Evidence Insufficient Conviction Reversed Lawyers Franklin County
OUI Massachusetts Evidence Insufficient Conviction Reversed Lawyers Franklin County
COMMONWEALTH V. MICHAEL
Facts:
Defendant appealed his convictions for drunken driving pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a) and operating a motor vehicle so as to endanger pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(2)(a), entered in the trial court (Massachusetts). Defendant alleged that there was insufficient evidence to show that he was the operator of the car.
OUI Massachusetts Evidence Insufficient Conviction Reversed Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether there was sufficient evidence to show that Defendant was the operator of the car?
Discussion:
A car driving along a highway was seen to veer suddenly to the left, skid across the center line and two opposing lanes, and strike a concrete fence. When a police officer arrived, he found defendant, who was injured, over the side of an embankment several feet from the right side of the car. The officer also saw a deceased man in a twisted position near the front passenger door. Defendant was convicted of drunken driving under § 24(1)(a) and of operating a motor vehicle so as to endanger under § 24(2)(a). Defendant appealed, alleging that there was insufficient evidence that he was the driver. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to permit an inference that defendant was driving. If anything, the fact that defendant was thrown clear of the car through the passenger side door while the deceased remained in the car indicated that defendant had been sitting in the passenger seat rather than in the driver’s seat. Further, the Commonwealth made no attempt, by expert testimony or otherwise, to remedy such an obvious omission in the evidence. Defendant’s alleged statements showing consciousness of guilt were not enough to resolve the uncertainty. The court reversed defendant’s convictions for drunken driving and operating a motor vehicle so as to endanger
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 Suspect Drive Alcohol Smell Attorneys Franklin County
OUI Massachusetts Suspect Drive Alcohol Smell Attorneys Franklin County
COMMONWEALTH vs. PETER
Facts:
As Officer Monteiro left the scene, he saw a vehicle exit the driveway of the home in the same direction as Officer Perna. Suspecting that the defendant was driving while intoxicated, he stopped the vehicle. Officer Monteiro noticed that the defendant was, in fact, the driver; he smelled of alcohol; his eyes were glassy; his speech was slow, thick-tonged, and slurred; and he was inappropriately dressed for the weather. Defendant failed the field sobriety tests. The officer then arrested the defendant. During booking, the defendant acted belligerently toward the officers, although he was able to answer all their questions. Upon this evidence, a District Court jury convicted the defendant of operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1), which a judge later determined was his fourth offense.
OUI Massachusetts Suspect Drive Alcohol Smell Attorneys
Issues:
- Whether reasonable suspicion was lacking to justify Officer Monteiro’s stop?
- Whether insufficient evidence supported his conviction?
- Whether Officer Monteiro’s testimony that he failed certain sobriety tests was improperly admitted?
Discussion:
The judge credited Officer Monteiro’s testimony that just prior to the stop (1) the defendant smelled of alcohol, slurred his speech, and was uncooperative; and (2) that only the defendant remained in the single-family home when the vehicle departed from its driveway after the scene was cleared. Based on these specific and articulable facts, the judge properly concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion that the defendant was driving while intoxicated.
In the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the judge could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor based on the ample evidence furnished by the police witnesses. Officer Monteiro’s testimony that the defendant had failed two field sobriety tests amounts to no more than mere percipient testimony that his performance of those tests was inadequate. The stop of the defendant was premised on reasonable suspicion; there was sufficient evidence of his intoxication; and testimony that he failed two sobriety tests was properly admitted.
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 OUI Liquor Drug Charges Evidence Lawyers Attorneys
The defendant moved for a required finding of not guilty on both the OUI-liquor and OUI-drug charges, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that she was under the influence of drugs or liquor.
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
