Boston Massachusetts OUI Driving Lawyer Influence Intoxicating Liquor

Boston Massachusetts OUI Driving Lawyer Influence Intoxicating Liquor

Commonwealth v. White

Facts:

Defendant was convicted in the District Court Department, Massachusetts of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1), and negligent operation of a motor vehicle on a public way, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(2)(a). He appealed his convictions.

 If you are facing a criminal case in Boston, Massachusetts, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help.  You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Boston Massachusetts OUI Driving Lawyer

Holdings:

The Massachusetts Court made the following holding:

• Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. 12 provides in part that no person shall be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself for the driving offenses. It protects against the admission in a criminal proceeding of evidence that is (1) made under compulsion from the government and (2) testimonial or communicative in nature. Although the privilege against self-incrimination under art. 12 is broad, it protects only against the compulsion of communications or testimony and not against the production of real or physical evidence, such as fingerprints, photographs, lineups, blood samples, handwriting, and voice exemplars. On the other hand, “testimonial” evidence is evidence that reveals the subject’s knowledge or thoughts concerning some fact.
• The admission of evidence of a defendant’s refusal to consent to a breathalyzer test is violative of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination because (1) evidence of refusal is clearly compelled by the government under a statutory scheme where the defendant must provide an immediate response to a police request for consent or refusal of consent to a breathalyzer test, and if he refuses, his driver’s license is automatically suspended, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f); and (2) a refusal to consent to a breathalyzer test is testimonial in nature, and communicates the defendant’s consciousness of his own guilt. The refusal reveals the defendant’s inculpatory thoughts and is akin to his stating, “I have had so much to drink that I know or at least suspect that I am unable to pass the test.” The admission of such a refusal would place a defendant in a coercive “Catch-22″ situation: Take the test and “furnish” incriminating real evidence against oneself or refuse and produce adverse testimonial evidence of consciousness of guilt. Therefore, such refusal evidence is both compelled and furnishes evidence against oneself, and would violate the privilege against self-incrimination of Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. 12

The Gilmore & SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your case.

A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your 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 Gilmore & Sris Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The Original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.