Massachusetts Attleboro City OUI Conviction Lawyers Attorney

by

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

Commonwealth v. James A. Bryer

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

March 5, 1986, Argued

July 10, 1986, Decided

Facts:

An Officer of the North Attleborough police department stopped a dark-colored Oldsmobile automobile which was being operated by the defendant and which had been speeding and swaying across the road. The officer observed that the defendant showed signs of intoxication and concluded that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. The assisting officer and an officer at the police station corroborated the conclusion that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. The defendant, James A. Bryer, was tried and convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and of operating a motor vehicle negligently so that the lives and safety of the public might be endangered. G. L. c. 90, 24 (1) (a), (2) (a). He appealed.

Issues:

Whether the defendant was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s references to the defendant’s failure to call a

witness

Whether the judge erred in denying the defendant’s request for a continuance to procure a witness

Whether the judge’s instructions to the jury on the standards governing the charge of operating under the influence created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice?

Discussion:

This court found no error in the trial judge’s rulings or in the prosecutor’s comment because the evidence against defendant was so strong that he could be expected to call the witness if he were innocent. The fact that the witness could not have fully corroborated the defendant’s story if it were true does not bar prosecutorial comment or inquiry on these lines, since the defendant would be expected to call for even partial corroboration of his story in a battle over credibility in the face of the Commonwealth’s strong case. The defendant does not argue that Stevens was equally available to the prosecution. Even where that argument has been an inference is permitted to be drawn against the defendant where the posture of the case is such that the defendant would be naturally expected to call the witness.

This court held that Dr. Quinn, the witness had treated the defendant for back problems, he had no testimony to offer regarding personal observations of the defendant at the time of the incident. Expert testimony would not have measurably contributed to their ability to resolve this issue. In light of the multiple delays caused by the defendant and the failure to demonstrate the need for “any significantly new evidence,” the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the continuance.

This court held that since it was open for the jury to believe that the defendant was only under the influence to some perceptible degree which is not sufficient and that the negligent operation of the vehicle was not in any way related to alcohol, but was just negligent or careless. However, the possibility that the jury delivered their verdicts on this theory is so remote in light of the evidence presented at trial that the risk of a miscarriage of justice was minimal.

Conclusion:

This court hence affirmed the judgment of the trial court that convicted the defendant.

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

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah is a Virginia lawyer and owner of the SRIS Law Group. The SRIS Law Group has offices in Virginia, Maryland,

Massachusetts

, New York, North Carolina & California. The firm handles criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration & bankruptcy cases.

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com