Source: https://www.bostoncriminaldefenselawyer-blog.com/category/motor-vehicle-crimes
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:26:00+00:00

Document:
Motor Vehicle Crimes Category Archives — Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog Published by Boston, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney — Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.
Last month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a Massachusetts car theft case discussing whether the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant. Ultimately, the court concluded that the officers had probable cause to believe that the car was stolen and that the defendant was in possession of the car, but not that the defendant knew the car was stolen. Thus, the court suppressed the post-arrest statements made by the defendant, because his arrest was illegal.
According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was seen leaning next to a car. As police drove by, they ran the car’s plates and determined that the vehicle was stolen. The police observed the defendant open the car door, throw something in, and then close the door. The defendant eventually got into the car through the passenger’s side door and sat down in the front passenger seat. There was no one else in the car.
Based on their observations, the police arrested the defendant. After his arrest, the defendant admitted to knowing that the car was stolen. The defendant was charged with receipt of stolen property.
In a recent Massachusetts criminal law appellate opinion, a state court discussed the difference between the two types of battery, attempted and threatened, and whether the latter requires a finding that the victims were aware of the defendant’s conduct. Ultimately, the court concluded that a threatened battery does require that the victim be aware of the defendant’s conduct, and reversed two of the defendant’s four convictions on that theory.
The defendant was charged with four counts of assault for allegedly using his vehicle to intentionally crash into another vehicle containing his ex-girlfriend, her new boyfriend, and two other passengers.
The two rear-seat passengers testified that they got in the car, everything seemed fine, and then the next thing they knew they had been hit by another vehicle. They both believed they had been struck by a drunk driver. The two front seat passengers saw the defendant’s car approaching, although only one of them was able to make out the defendant as the driver.
In Commonwealth v. Anderson, a Massachusetts appellate court considered a criminal hit and run case. The defendant was charged with leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident after causing personal injury and property damage, as well as reckless operation of a motor vehicle.
The case arose after 2:00 a.m., when police officers and firefighters responded to a car accident. A Ford Mustang had crashed through the wall of a house, such that it was partially inside and partially outside. A woman and her boyfriend occupied the house. The boyfriend was injured and had to go to the hospital. By the time the police arrived, nobody was inside the Ford Mustang, and nobody identified himself as the driver. The key was left in the ignition, and the glass and locks were intact. The defendant was the registered owner.
When police tried to reach the defendant, they got his parents. Later, the defendant came to the police station and talked to one of the officers who’d responded to the scene. He told the officer that he’d lost control of the Mustang, hit the house, and in a panic, left for a friend’s house. Other than this confession, nobody came forward to identify him.
Under G. L. c. 90, § 24G(b), somebody who operates a car or other vehicle recklessly or negligently and endangers the lives of others, and thereby causes another’s death, can be convicted of homicide by a motor vehicle. The punishment is imprisonment in jail or a house of correction for a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of 2 1/2 years, or a fine of $300-3,000, or both of these.
In Commonwealth v. Gallien, the defendant was convicted of motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation. The evidence showed the defendant didn’t stop the tow truck he was driving, resulting in a crash with a Honda Civic stopped at a red light. The collision killed a passenger in the rear-seat of the Honda.
The judge precluded the defendant from presenting evidence about modifications made to the Honda. The court explained that in criminal cases, a victim’s contributory negligence, even if it is a big part of the cause of a homicide, doesn’t excuse the defendant for also causing the victim’s death. To the extent that the defense’s goal was to show the victim was also negligent, excluding the evidence was proper. On appeal, however, the defendant argued that the modifications evidence should have been admissible not to show the victim’s negligence, but to show that the driver’s actions were an intervening or superseding cause of the victim’s death. The driver was a third party, not the victim.
If you hurt someone while drunk driving in Massachusetts, you may be charged with multiple counts, some of which may seem quite similar. In a recent case, a Massachusetts defendant was convicted of (1) drunk driving (operating under the influence or OUI), (2) drunk driving that caused a serious bodily injury, (3) driving on a suspended license, (4) manslaughter by motor vehicle, and (5) motor vehicle homicide. The case arose because the defendant was driving drunk on the wrong side of an access road and crashed into a Saturn. A 17-year-old passenger in the Saturn was killed and the driver seriously injured.
A state police trooper later testified that when the crash happened, the defendant was driving at 55 mph in a 25-mph zone, and the defendant didn’t try to avoid the crash. The defendant claimed he had drunk two 16-oz. mojitos and a vodka-Red Bull drink before the crash happened. The trooper also noted the defendant’s slurred speech, glassy eyes, unsteadiness, and failure to pass a sobriety test. The trooper arrested the defendant.
During the booking process, blood ran from the defendant’s ear, and he asked for medical assistance. Paramedics examined him. He agreed to a breathalyzer test with two measurements, and his blood alcohol level measured at .17 and .18. Next, he was taken to the hospital, where his blood alcohol level was measured at .15.
Miranda rights are frequently misunderstood. When police officers take a suspect into custody intending to conduct an interrogation, they must advise the suspect of his (1) right to remain silent, (2) that what he says can be used against him/her, (3) right to an attorney and that one will be provided at no charge if he can’t afford one. However, Miranda rights need not be given before asking questions at a crime scene, before a suspect volunteers statements, questioning for fact-finding purpose and questioning someone during an investigatory stop.
In a recent case that is not binding precedent, a defendant appealed the jury’s finding he was guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, negligent operation of a motor vehicle and assault. He appealed on the grounds that statements he made at the time of his arrest should have been suppressed.
The appellate court explained that a jury could have found facts that supported the conviction. In the version the jury believed, a police officer was sent to a car crash at 2:00 a.m. and found the car near a broken telephone pole on a lawn with heavy tire marks. The defendant was at the scene, smelling of alcohol and slurred his speech.
Massachusetts State Police announced that an arrest has been made in the case of a motorcyclist believed to have been traveling on highways around the greater Boston area at speeds in excess of 100 MPH, and using the breakdown lanes in order to evade police for several weeks.The 29 year old motorcyclist was recently arraigned on various charges, including reckless driving and speeding. An arrest was made on Tuesday morning, after the motorcyclist was found allegedly hiding behind a tractor-trailer in a parking lot in Randolph, just minutes after he was seen speeding along Route 24, where he was also reportedly making sudden lane changes, traveling in the median, and traveling south in a northbound lane.
A State Trooper reported that on a prior occasion, when he activated his lights, the driver flipped down his clear visor, and sped off at approximately 100 miles per hour. The motorcycle on which the man was riding had no license plates, and his helmet obscured his features. Another trooper reported a similar exchange, whereby the man reportedly took off onto the sidewalk, and then down the wrong side of the road. State Police reportedly posted information regarding the wanted motorcyclist on Facebook and Twitter, which led to a trucker informing police when he saw the motorcyclist behind his tractor trailer.
Authorities in New Hampshire announced a surprising second arrest in connection with the case of a New Hampshire teenager who was recently charged with killing two Massachusetts women on bicycles.The 19 year old teenage girl was arraigned this week on charges of negligent homicide and second-degree assault. However, police announced that they made an additional arrest, of a 48 year old woman, who was subsequently charged with providing drugs to the teenager on the morning of the crash, and for also allegedly allowing the girl to drive without a license. Her official charges included selling a controlled substance and an offense of allowing an improper person to operate a vehicle. The relationship between the two women is unknown at this point in time.
The teen involved in the crash was reportedly traveling at very fast speeds, and claims that she took her eyes off of the road for just seconds, resulting in the fatal striking of the two bicyclists. Two others were seriously injured. The probable cause hearing for her case is tentatively scheduled to take place on October 8.
In Massachusetts, it is a serious offense to operate a motor vehicle after one’s license has been suspended. However, what people may not be aware of is the different ways that your license or right to drive can be taken away, how long it will be suspended for and what fees you will be required to pay to the Massachusetts Registry, once you have taken steps to have your license reinstated.
The most evident reasons for license suspensions are for serious criminal offenses. For example, a person convicted of motor vehicular homicide or vehicular manslaughter, will have his or her license suspended for at least fifteen (15) years and, depending on the persons’ record, it could potentially be taken for life.
A license can also be suspended for one (1) to three (3) years if a person is convicted of stealing a motor vehicle, another serious criminal offense. The punishment for driving negligently so as to endanger is a license suspension of 60 days up to one year. If a person is convicted of leaving the scene of an accident where there is property damage, a license can be suspended for 60 days and up to a year as well. If there are injuries and a person leaves the scene of the crime, the punishment is even more severe, with suspension ranging from one (1) to two (2) years. For all of the previous offenses, the reinstatement fee is $500.00 in addition to periods of suspension, which must be served unless the driver is given a hardship license or a suspension reduction by the Board of Appeal for the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
Tagged: "Criminal Offense", "Motor Vehicle Crime" and "Suspended License"
In a recent ruling representing a change in the interpretation of Melanie’s Law, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has ruled that the Massachusetts Legislature did not intend that an “admission to sufficient facts” also known as a “CWOF” or “continuance without a finding of guilt” in a drunk driving case to be treated as a conviction by the Registry of Motor Vehicles when acting pursuant to G.L. c.90, § 24(1)(f)(1) to suspend an operator’s driver’s license for more that 180 days due to the driver’s refusal to take a breathalyzer test.
In so holding, the SJC decided that a person charged with operating under the influence of alcohol who receives a continuance without a finding -a routine disposition for first-time drunk driving offenders-shall not have their case counted as a first offense conviction on their record. The lawyer for the Registry of Motor Vehicles contended that a CWOF should be treated as a conviction subjecting a repeat (DWI/OUI) offenders to the additional license suspension penalties.
The case name is Souza v. Registry of Motor Vehicles and was decided on May 17, 2012 as reported in the Boston Herald. In this case, a defendant arrested and charged with OUI admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty but he did not plead guilty and his case was continued without a finding and later dismissed after he successfully completed his probationary terms. The defendant was arrested again thirteen years later and he had refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. Later, the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles suspended his driver’s license for three years pursuant to G.L. c.90, § 24(1)(f)(1) which directs that the RMV suspend the license for three years for a breath test refusal if the driver has been previously convicted of an OUI crime. If there is no previous conviction, the RMV suspension is for 180 days.

References: v. 
 § 24
 v. 
 § 24
 v. 
 § 24