As a Massachusetts OUI Lawyer when I reviewed a case I make sure that the Commonwealth can prove operation.  In conversations with clients, many times the client will believe that the Commonwealth cannot prove operation because the client was not scene driving; however, Massachusetts OUI law does permit circumstantial evidence of operation.  One of the key rules on operation is that a conviction of OUI cannot be grounded solely in the uncorroborated confession of a defendant.  But what type of evidence is sufficient to establish corroboration. The Massachusetts Appeals Court in the case of

In recent weeks, the Appeals Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts clarified the standard of corroborated evidence required for convictions based on admissions.  The Appeals Court addressed this issue in Commonwealth v. Lagotic, on March 15,2023.  

What does it mean to Corroborate a confession?

Can the Police Test Your Blood Without Your Consent? The Massachusetts Appellate Court May Decide.

 The Massachusetts statutes state that when a chemical “test or analysis” of a defendant’s blood-alcohol content is made by or at the direction of police, it is admissible in court only if the defendant consents. In the case of Commonwealth v. Eric Moreau, the police obtained a warrant to seize blood drawn from the defendant by hospital personnel and then tested it in the State Police Crime Lab without the defendant’s consent. This case is pending before the Massachusetts Appellate Court and asks whether the result of the test is admissible in the prosecution of the defendant.

What happened in the Moreau case?

A Jury in a Massachusetts OUI charge normally is before a jury of Six.  Recently I had a trial in Quincy District Court where we proceeded with a jury of five people.  As is typical in the District Court, the court did not have enough jurors.  Rather than picking another date, I told the judge my client would be willing to waive his right to a six person jury and have the case heard by Five instead.  With the consent of the district attorney and the defendant, the court can allow a trial to proceed with five jurors.  If this situation arises, because it is unusual, you may have to inform the judge that the law allows for a five person jury under these circumstances.  As a defense attorney, the calculation is whether you like the five potentially sitting in the box versus coming back on another date.  I felt as though the five individuals selected could be fair and it did not make a difference to me that there was one less juror.  In fact, had the last juror not been excluded for cause by the judge; I would have asked the judge before striking the juror if he would allow me to strike that juror and go with five instead.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 12 of the Declaration of Rights normally require a six person jury, but the law allow the number to be reduced to five upon agreement of all parties.  The law does not permit a defendant to have a jury less than five even with the agreement of the parties.  Some judges will not allow a trial to proceed with five.

If you have questions about the court process when charged with OUI, feel free to contact Attorney DelSignore.  We have encountered almost every issue that comes up in court and with the RMV.  Feel free to reach out on Facebook if you have questions as well where we posted updates to the law.

The Massachusetts Legislature is considering requiring first time offenders to have the ignition interlock imposed if convicted of a first time OUI offense.  All states, except Massachusetts, have laws that may require first-time drunk driving offenders to install “ignition interlock devices” in their vehicles. This device is like a mini-breathalyzer that the driver must blow into before driving the vehicle. If there are measurable amounts of alcohol in the driver’s breath, the vehicle will not start. Not all states mandate the devices in all circumstances, for example the devices are mandatory in some states if a first-time offender registers an extremely high blood alcohol content.  It is already mandatory for Massachusetts repeat drunk driving offenders with hardship licenses to have the device installed in any vehicle the offender drives, but Massachusetts is the only state where this remedy cannot be ordered for first-time offenders, regardless of the blood alcohol level associated with the offense.

There are currently several different pieces of proposed legislation that, if passed, would mandate ignition interlock devices for certain first-time drunk driving offenders. Gov. Baker’s proposed bill (S.7) would require ignition interlock devices as a condition of receiving a hardship license, for the duration of the hardship license. Anyone, including first-time offenders, that does not receive a hardship license would still be required to use an interlock ignition device for the first six months after their license is reinstated. It also establishes clear penalties for anyone who has an interlock ignition device that tries to drive intoxicated or tampers with the device. Similar bills sponsored by Sen. Tarr (S. 2137) and Rep. Whelan (H. 1580) would mandate interlock ignition devices for all first-time offenders once their licenses are reinstated. The Whelan bill would reduce the term of license suspension for first-time offenders if the offender installs the ignition interlock device. The bills have all been referred to the Joint Committee for Transportation.

Reforms to the ignition interlock laws were previously proposed in the Massachusetts legislature at least three times, but failed to pass. Now that Massachusetts is the only state that does not allow for any first-time offender to be ordered to use ignition interlock devices, there is increased pressure on lawmakers to pass this legislation.  The National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB), Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), and AAA all support these bills, citing a Centers for Disease Control report that the use of ignition interlock devices reduces repeat offenses by 67 percent, therefore reducing the number of drunk driving deaths. MADD claims that ignition interlock devices have prevented three million drunk drivers from driving since 2006. Proponents also believe that these reforms offer a fair balance between the offenders need to drive and the public safety risks from drunk drivers.