OUI In Massachusetts Cambridge Lawyers Operating Motor Vehicle Gen. 90 24
OUI In Massachusetts Cambridge Lawyers Operating Motor Vehicle Gen. 90 24
Connor v Sam
Facts:
A jury in the Cambridge District Court (Massachusetts) convicted defendant of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (OUI), and then, in a separate bench trial, a judge found that this was defendant’s fourth OUI offense, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1). Defendant appealed.
If you are facing a OUI case in Cambridge, Massachusetts, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
OUI In Massachusetts Cambridge Lawyers
Holdings:
The Massachusetts Court made the following holding:
- That a statute provides for introduction of probation records at trial does not alter the constitutional confrontation analysis.
- Registry of Motor Vehicles records are maintained independent of any prosecutorial purpose and are therefore admissible in evidence as ordinary business records under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 78, as well as pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 76.
The Gilmore & Sris, P.C. Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case.
A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your criminal 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 client meeting locations in Worcester & Cambridge.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the Gilmore & Sris, P.C. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Massachusetts OUI Boston Lawyer Driving Influence Conviction Violation 90 24
Massachusetts OUI Boston Lawyer Driving Influence Conviction Violation 90 24
Miller v Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed his conviction by the Boston Court(Massachusetts) of a third offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1) (1994). Defendant contended that his conviction was unconstitutional under U.S. Const. art. 1, § 9, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, and Mass. Const. Declaration of Rights arts. 12 and 24.
If you are facing a traffic case in Boston, Massachusetts, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
Massachusetts OUI Boston Lawyer Driving
Holdings:
The Massachusetts Court made the following holding:
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1) (1994) provides as follows: If the defendant has been previously convicted or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment, or rehabilitation program by a court of the commonwealth, or any other jurisdiction because of a like offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor two times within 10 years preceding the date of the commission of the offense for which he has been convicted, the defendant shall be punished by a sentence which may include a term of imprisonment in a state prison..
- Ex post facto principles are not violated when a person convicted of operating while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, second offense, receives an enhanced penalty for previously having been convicted of a like offense, even though the prior offense occurred before the effective date of the law mandating an enhanced penalty. The enhanced punishment is imposed for a subsequent violation; it is not retroactive punishment for the first. The prior offense is not part of the crime charged; it relates only to punishment.
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 Boston Massachusetts Lawyer License Suspension Violation Vehicle
OUI Boston Massachusetts Lawyer License Suspension Violation Vehicle
Prior v. Pauline
Facts:
Plaintiff driver sought review of the suspension of his license by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Commonwealth) for failure to comply with Mass Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24 1/2. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.
OUI Boston Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether IID requirement violated the defendant’s due process rights?
Discussions:
Under § 24 1/2, which took effect in 2006, drivers with two or more operating under the influence (OUI) convictions were required to install a Certified Ignition Interlock Device (IID) on their vehicles. Plaintiff, who had been convicted of OUI in 1990 and 1994, refused to install the device. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that Mass Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24 1/2 was an ex post facto law in violation of U.S. Const. art. I, § 9 and Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. 24. The statute’s dominant purpose was to protect public safety; thus, it was remedial. The fact that the IID requirement imposed a heavy burden upon individuals such as plaintiff did not render it punitive. Next, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that because he had operated a motor vehicle safely for 11 years, the IID requirement violated his due process rights. The statute bore a reasonable relation to the legislature’s goal of ensuring that those who had flouted the law in the past did not threaten future injury to themselves or to others. The legislature had determined that the IID requirement applied to all individuals with two or more OUI convictions. Any changes would have to be made by the legislature.
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.
DUI Belmont Massachusetts Lawyer Subsequent Motor Vehicle Enhancement
DUI Belmont Massachusetts Lawyer Subsequent Motor Vehicle Enhancement
Commonwealth v. Victor
Facts:
Defendant was convicted by a jury of Belmont District Court Department (Massachusetts) of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (DUI), fourth offense, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1). Defendant’s motion to dismiss the subsequent offense charge on the ground of double jeopardy was denied. After sentencing, defendant appealed.
DUI Belmont Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the defendant’s double jeopardy rights are violated by charging him on subsequent offense charge?
Discussions:
Defendant’s sentencing involved Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 11A, which provided that if defendant was charged with a crime for which more severe punishment was provided for second and subsequent offenses, then before sentence was imposed, defendant was entitled to a trial by jury of the issue of conviction of a prior offense. Here, one judge sentenced defendant, a second judge determined that defendant had three prior offenses, and the first judge resentenced defendant. On appeal, defendant argued that subjecting him to a sentence enhancement after the imposition of sentence on the OUI offense exposed him to additional punishment for the same crime and violated his double jeopardy rights. The appellate court concluded that the violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 11A, did not subject defendant to double jeopardy because the proceeding had not concluded and jeopardy had not terminated when the first judge imposed sentence following conviction of the OUI offense. Defendant was on notice that he had been charged with a subsequent offense. He was afforded a trial on the subsequent offense portion of the complaint and was given a single sentence based on the findings therefrom.
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 South Boston Massachusetts Lawyer Breathalyzer Test Results Expert Testimony
OUI South Boston Massachusetts Lawyer Breathalyzer Test Results Expert Testimony
Commonwealth v. Lucy
Facts:
Defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) in South Boston Massachusetts. The District Court Department (Massachusetts) ruled that as a breathalyzer test was given more than one hour after defendant last drove, the Commonwealth had to introduce expert testimony on retrograde extrapolation as a prerequisite to the admission of the test results. The Commonwealth appealed.
OUI South Boston Massachusetts Lawye
Issue:
- Whether the Commonwealth introduced expert testimony on retrograde extrapolation?
Discussions:
Defendant could be convicted of OUI under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24 by proof that (1) her blood alcohol content (BAC) was .08 or above, or (2) her ability to drive was impaired by alcohol. The trial court held that evidence of a breathalyzer test result obtained more than an hour after her last operation of a vehicle could not be offered to prove the “per se” offense unless the prosecution offered expert retrograde extrapolation testimony establishing her BAC at the time of operation; to prove an impaired ability violation, the prosecution could offer evidence, without expert testimony, that defendant took a breathalyzer test and that the reading was greater than zero. The high court held that retrograde extrapolation was not a prerequisite to the admission of the results of a breathalyzer test due to amendments to § 24 if the test was conducted within a reasonable period of time (i.e., three hours or less) after the driver’s last operation of the vehicle. If the prosecution proceeded only on an impaired ability theory and offered evidence of a breathalyzer result of .08 or above, it had to offer expert testimony on the significance of that level as it pertained to impairment.
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 Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer Motor Vehicle Probation Certificate
OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer Motor Vehicle Probation Certificate
Commonwealth v. Samuel
Facts:
A jury in the District Court Department (Massachusetts) convicted defendant of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (OUI), and then, in a separate bench trial, a judge found that this was defendant’s fourth OUI offense, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1). Defendant appealed.
OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether there was error in the admission of the probation certification?
Discussions:
Defendant argued that his confrontation rights were violated by the introduction, at the subsequent offense trial, of Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) records and a probation record. The appellate court found that there was error in the admission of the probation certification. This record did not qualify as a non-testimonial business record under Melendez-Diaz, but, rather, had every appearance of having been prepared in anticipation of litigation, defendant’s criminal trial for OUI as a fourth offense. It was error to admit the document absent an opportunity to cross-examine the writer. However, the introduction was harmless because a certified copy of the conviction was introduced as another exhibit. There was no Melendez-Diaz error in admission of RMV records, which were kept in the ordinary course of the business of the RMV and were admissible as business records under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, §§ 76, 78. Finally, defendant’s claim that there was inadequate biographical and informational data to establish his identity with respect to the prior conviction of OUI as a third offense was rejected.
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 Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer Motor Vehicle Public Way
OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer Motor Vehicle Public Way
Commonwealth v. Jerold K
Facts:
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 Defendant filed an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court (Massachusetts), which convicted him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred by dismissing the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that his arrest was illegal?
Discussion:
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.
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 Boston Massachusetts Lawyer Erroneous Instruction Vehicular Homicide
OUI Boston Massachusetts Lawyer Erroneous Instruction Vehicular Homicide
Commonwealth v. Jim
Facts:
The District Court of Boston convicted defendant of vehicular homicide while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, vehicular homicide while operating a motor vehicle so as to endanger the lives and safety of the public, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, operating a motor vehicle so as to endanger the public, and failure to keep to the right. Defendant appealed.
OUI Boston Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in admitting defendant’s hospital records into evidence, in instructing the jury on the definition of “while under the influence,” and in placing “lesser charges” on file?
Discussion:
Defendant caused an automobile accident in which one person died. Defendant’s treating physician ordered X-rays and a blood test to determine whether defendant was intoxicated or was suffering from a head injury. The blood test showed a blood alcohol level of .22 percent. Defendant alleged that the trial court erred in admitting his hospital records into evidence, in instructing the jury on the definition of “while under the influence,” and in placing “lesser charges” on file. The court held that defendant’s hospital records were admissible. The hospital record was kept pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 111, § 70 and was taken for the purposes of treatment. The blood test was not the only evidence of defendant’s intoxication. Defendant’s doctor and a police officer testified as to the odor of alcohol and defendant’s irregular behavior. The court held that the trial court did not err in charging the jury because the alleged erroneous instruction was in conformity with the model jury instructions, and defendant did not object to the instruction. Because only one person died in the accident, defendant could not be convicted of two counts of vehicular homicide. The court set aside defendant’s conviction for vehicular homicide while operating a motor vehicle so as to endanger the lives and safety of the public and dismissed the complaint as to that count. The court affirmed defendant’s convictions for vehicular homicide while under the influence, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, operating a motor vehicle so as to endanger the public, and failure to keep to the right
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 Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer Extraterritorial Arrest Illegal
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer Extraterritorial Arrest Illegal
Commonwealth v. Job
Facts:
Defendant sought review of convictions for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, operating negligently, and leaving the scene after causing property damage, before the District Court Norfolk (Massachusetts), which denied defendant’s motions to dismiss the charges of operating a motor vehicle negligently and operating under the influence and for a new trial.
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the defendant’s extraterritorial arrest was illegal?
Discussion:
Defendant was refused admittance to a nightclub because he was visibly intoxicated. Before he drove away, the nightclub doorman informed a police officer of defendant’s apparent intent to drive under the influence. The officer told defendant to stop; he left, hitting another vehicle in the process. That officer’s radio report was heard by another officer, who pursued defendant into the next city, where he stopped and was arrested. Defendant argued that his extraterritorial arrest was illegal. The court disagreed, affirming the convictions. The court reasoned that the fact that the offense was not committed in the arresting officer’s immediate presence was immaterial because the offense was committed in his fellow officer’s presence. The arresting officer, as a result of the radio communication, which he heard within his jurisdiction, had reason to believe that the suspect had committed an arrestable offense. And the extraterritorial arrest was valid because the arresting officer crossed the jurisdictional boundary in the course of a fresh and continued pursuit of defendant. The court affirmed the convictions and the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
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 Boston Massachusetts Lawyer Second Subsequent Offense Violation
OUI Boston Massachusetts Lawyer Second Subsequent Offense Violation
Commonwealth v. Long
Facts:
Defendant appealed the judgment entered in the Brockton Division of the District Court Department, Boston (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 Boston Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court violated defendant’s due process rights by not affording him the opportunity to exercise his right to a separate trial?
Discussion:
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 court vacated that portion of the judgment finding defendant guilty of operating under the influence of alcohol, second offense. Further, the court ordered the jury’s verdict, finding defendant guilty of the underlying offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor, shall be correctly entered on the docket and, as corrected, shall stand. Finally the court remanded the case for further proceedings.
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.
8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Midnight
