In this Blog, Massachusetts OUI Lawyer Michael DelSignore explains common terms used in Court.  One of my goals as a lawyer is to make sure you understand the process.  You will hear these terms frequently used in Court and here is what lawyers mean when these terms are used in Court.

Common Terms used in Court when Facing an OUI

Like any industry, the legal profession uses certain terminology when discussing cases and court appearances. In this Chapter, I have defined common terms for people charged with drunk driving to help you understand the language used in court. 

Massachusetts Appeals Court address what level of evidence is needed to convict for negligent operation.  In Commonwealth v. Zagwyn, the Appeals Court clarified the law related to evidence of negligent operation of a motor vehicle and OUI in Massachusetts. The central issue addressed by Zagwgnwas whether the Commonwealth meets its burden of proof on the negligent operation charge when the evidence demonstrates solely that the defendant was operating a vehicle with a defective headlight and rear license plate while intoxicated. The court also considered whether the officer’s opinion testimony that defendant was too intoxicated to drive a motor vehicle, the ultimate issue of guilt on the OUI charge, was improper and created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.  In considering those arguments related to the OUI charge, the SJC summarily affirmed the defendant’s conviction for those reasons stated by the Appeals Court and offers no further discussion of the charge.

On the negligent operation charge, the SJC ruled that the evidence was inadequate to support the jury’s conviction and reversed the judgment of conviction. The evidence in Zagwynshowed that the arresting officer noticed that defendant’s vehicle had a broken headlight and rear plate light.  He followed defendant’s vehicle for about a mile before pulling him over.  While following defendant’s vehicle, the officer did not observe defendant speeding, swerving, or making any sudden braking movements.  When the officer stopped defendant’s vehicle, he moved the vehicle to a safe location.  Evidence obtained during the stop showed that defendant was operating the vehicle under the influence of alcohol.  The Commonwealth did not present any additional evidence of negligent operation. Defendant was convicted of OUI, negligent operation of a motor vehicle after a jury trial in the Barnstable District Court. The trial court also found defendant was responsible for civil equipment violations for the faulty headlight and rear plate light.

Prior case law dealing with negligent operation and what is enough evidence

The Massachusetts Supreme Court will soon decide the case of Commonwealth v. Dayton, which raises the issue of whether an individual charged with an OUI third offense can be held as a danger to the community. The dangerousness statute of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 58a, provides that a defendant can be held for up to 120 days without bail if the Commonwealth can establish that the defendant is a danger to the community. To be held without bail under the dangerousness statute, the defendant has to be charged with an offense which falls under the statute.

OUI third offense may fall under the statute, however, the statute is ambiguous, as to whether an OUI third qualifies for detention under the dangerousness statute. Section 58a., provides that the Commonwealth may order pretrial detention on conditions of release for a felony offense, including when a defendant is arrested and charged with a third or subsequent conviction for a violation of Section 24 of Ch. 90.

Third offense is a felony offense, however the issue is whether it counts as a third or subsequent conviction. The defendant’s in the Dayton case argued that a person must would have to be charged with a fourth offense in order to meet the requirements of being held as a danger to the community. A person charged with a third offense only has two prior convictions, as a person charged with a fourth offense has a third more subsequent conviction.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will hear oral argument tomorrow on the issue of whether the Valor Act permits a dismissal of an OUI charge over the prosecutor’s objection.  The case that raised this issue is Commonwealth v. Joel Morgan, which was originally  charged out of the Lowell District Court.

The Valor Act allows for pretrial diversion of any individual who has served in the military and has been in at least one day of actual combat. To qualify for a diversion under the Valor Act, the individual most not have any prior record and must get a recommendation from a treatment provider that they would benefit from the treatment.  The diversion is available for any type of criminal charge but has come up must recently regarding OUI offenses.  The Morgan raises two questions both in the context of a second offense; however, the Court’s reasoning is likely to apply to a first offense.

• Can a Judge enter a CWOF on a second offense OUI?