OUI Suffolk Massachusetts Lawyer Accident Violation Arrest
OUI Suffolk Massachusetts Lawyer Accident Violation Arrest
Commonwealth v. Jake
Facts:
Defendant appealed an order from the District Court Department (Massachusetts), which granted his motion to suppress statements that he made at the scene of an automobile accident. Defendant had been charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) or similar offense, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(l)(a)(1).
OUI Suffolk Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether officer’s subjective intent to arrest defendant was communicated?
Discussions:
A police officer who responded to a report of an automobile accident observed defendant driving his car at that location. Upon questioning, defendant claimed that he had been at a friend’s house and he had hit a pole. The officer had observed signs of defendant’s intoxication, and he believed he had probable cause to arrest defendant for OUI. He did not communicate this fact to defendant. Defendant performed two field sobriety tests and then refused to perform a third one. Defendant was arrested and charged with OUI or a similar offense. The trial court granted suppression of defendant’s statements made after the officer determined that he had probable cause to arrest defendant, finding that defendant was in de facto custody and no Miranda warnings had been given. On appeal, the court determined that defendant was not “in custody” within the meaning of Miranda and its progeny at the time he made the statements at issue, such that there was no cause for Miranda warnings, and suppression was not warranted. The officer’s subjective intent to arrest defendant was not communicated, and there were no other factors to support a conclusion that defendant was objectively in custody.
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.
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 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 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.
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 Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer Violation Miranda Warning
OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer Violation Miranda Warning
R. Woods v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed an order from the District Court Department (Massachusetts), which granted his motion to suppress statements that he made at the scene of an automobile accident. Defendant had been charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) or similar offense, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(l)(a)(1).
OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in granting suppression of defendant’s statements?
Discussion:
A police officer who responded to a report of an automobile accident observed defendant driving his car at that location. Upon questioning, defendant claimed that he had been at a friend’s house and he had hit a pole. The officer had observed signs of defendant’s intoxication, and he believed he had probable cause to arrest defendant for OUI. He did not communicate this fact to defendant. Defendant performed two field sobriety tests and then refused to perform a third one. Defendant was arrested and charged with OUI or a similar offense. The trial court granted suppression of defendant’s statements made after the officer determined that he had probable cause to arrest defendant, finding that defendant was in de facto custody and no Miranda warnings had been given. On appeal, the court determined that defendant was not “in custody” within the meaning of Miranda and its progeny at the time he made the statements at issue, such that there was no cause for Miranda warnings, and suppression was not warranted. The officer’s subjective intent to arrest defendant was not communicated, and there were no other factors to support a conclusion that defendant was objectively in custody.
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 Motor Vehicle Liability Policy
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer Motor Vehicle Liability Policy
Charles v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Plaintiff licensee filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in his Mass. Gen. Laws ch.. 30A, § 14 action. The action challenged a decision of defendant, the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (Massachusetts), which affirmed the decision of the Registry of Motor Vehicles to suspend the licensee’s driver’s license for two years following his second conviction for operating under the influence of liquor (OUI).
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether Registry of Motor Vehicles erred in suspending the licensee’s driver’s license for two years?
Discussion:
The licensee pled guilty to his second OUI charge. The trial court ordered, and the docket sheet indicated, that the licensee’s license was suspended “by application of law.” The licensee had completed a treatment program, and had been terminated from probation, which had followed two years of supervision. Nonetheless, he received an additional revocation notice after the Registry received notification of the conviction. That notification was received two years after the conviction. The licensee’s appeal of the suspension to the Board failed. The Board argued that the revocation could not begin until the Registry received notification of it. The court disagreed. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(b) (eff. July 21, 2002) clearly stated that the revocation occurred immediately upon the licensee’s OUI conviction and that the trial court would notify the Registry of that event. The notification was wholly independent of the revocation. Thus, the revocation/suspension of the licensee’s driving privileges occurred immediately up his conviction, notwithstanding the fact that notice to the registry was late in arriving. The licensee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was allowed
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 Breathalyzer Retrograde Extrapolation
OUI Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer Breathalyzer Retrograde Extrapolation
Kristina v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI). The Norfolk Court (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 Norfolk Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the retrograde extrapolation was prerequisite to the admission of the results of a breathalyzer test?
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 trial court’s holding that in a “per se” OUI case, expert retrograde extrapolation testimony was required for admission of a breathalyzer test performed more than one hour after defendant last drove, was reversed and the case was remanded 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
