OUI Massachusetts Breathalyzer Test Driving Impaired Violation Lawyers Middlesex County

COMMONWEALTH vs. ANNE JOHN.

Facts:

Anne John was stopped at 9:10 P.M. by a State trooper who observed her operating a vehicle in an unsafe fashion. On stopping the vehicle, the trooper smelled alcohol in the vehicle and on Anne John and he observed that Anne John’s speech was slurred and her eyes glassy. Anne John was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and consented to a breathalyzer test. Two tests were administered, the first at 10:15 P.M. and the second at 10:19 P.M. The results showed a blood alcohol level of .15 per cent. Thereafter, a complaint issued charging her with violating the OUI statute by operating a vehicle “with a percentage, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood of eight one-hundredths or greater, or while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. 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 Commonwealth appealed.

OUI Massachusetts Breathalyzer Test Driving Impaired Violation Lawyers

Issue:

• Whether, or on what conditions, the result of a breathalyzer test is admissible in a criminal trial on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI)?

Discussion:

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 Court further held that if, however, the Commonwealth were to proceed only on a theory of impaired operation and offered a breathalyzer test result of .08 or greater, without evidence of its relationship to intoxication or impairment and without the statutorily permissible inference of intoxication eliminated by the 2003 amendments, the jury would be left to guess at its meaning. We agree with the District Court judge that in such circumstances, the “prejudicial effect of such evidence any possible probative value.” While it is difficult to envision a situation in which the Commonwealth would proceed in this fashion, if it chooses to do so, it must present expert testimony establishing a relationship between the test results and intoxication as a foundational requirement of the admissibility of such results. The decision of the District Court judge is reversed in part, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

Click to Chat

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.