Court Opinion

ID: 9892066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 14:07:45.925921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:04.047165
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

                       COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 APPEALS COURT

                                                  22-P-514

                                  COMMONWEALTH

                                       vs.

                               PARECKLIS ROCHA.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       After a jury-waived trial in the Boston Municipal Court,

 the defendant was convicted of operating under the influence of

 intoxicating liquor (OUI).1, 2        The defendant appeals from his

 conviction for OUI.       Because we conclude that the evidence was

 sufficient to prove the elements of OUI beyond a reasonable

 doubt, we affirm.

       Background.     "When reviewing the denial of a motion for a

 required finding of not guilty, 'we consider the evidence

 introduced at trial in the light most favorable to the

 Commonwealth and determine whether a rational trier of fact

 1 The defendant was acquitted of the negligent operation of a
 motor vehicle charge.
 2 The defendant was also found responsible for failure to

 stop/yield, G. L. c. 89, § 9; failure to stop for police, G. L.
 c. 90, § 25; and possession of an open container of alcohol in a
 motor vehicle, G. L. c. 90, § 24I.
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a

reasonable doubt.'"     Commonwealth v. Ross, 92 Mass. App. Ct.

377, 378 (2017), quoting Commonwealth v. Oberle, 476 Mass. 539,

547 (2017).     Because the defendant challenges only the

sufficiency of the evidence of intoxication, we focus only on

that element.    See G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1)(a)(1).

    On July 19, 2019, at approximately 2:40 A.M., a

Massachusetts State Trooper, who was conducting a traffic stop

of another car, heard a screeching sound come from a vehicle on

the road in front of her.     She then observed that vehicle take a

"wild turn" onto Albany Street in Boston.     It appeared to the

trooper that the driver either had lost control of the car or

had taken the turn too fast because the trooper observed that

the driver had to turn the wheel aggressively to regain control

of the car.     The car then stopped at a red light, but proceeded

to go through it before the light changed to green.     It was the

only car on the road at the time.

    The trooper and her partner rushed back into their cruiser,

pulled onto the road, and positioned themselves behind the

suspect vehicle.     They activated their cruiser lights and

sirens, but the driver failed to stop.     The trooper used her air

horn and multiple types of sirens in her attempt to stop the

car, but it did not stop.     Instead, the vehicle turned into a

parking lot of a gas station and drove behind the station and a

                                   2
hotel.   Ultimately, the car returned to the gas station and

stopped.

    As the trooper exited her cruiser, the driver abruptly

opened his door and "made body motions that looked like he was

gonna run."   The trooper apprehended the driver, who was the

defendant, and handcuffed him.     The defendant said that he was

going fast and did not think that the trooper was going to be

able to catch up to him.   The trooper noticed that the defendant

smelled of alcohol, his speech was slurred, and his eyes were

bloodshot and glassy.   The defendant stated that he had been at

a club, and the trooper believed that he said he had been

drinking, but she could not fully recall.

    The defendant agreed to perform field sobriety assessments.

While attempting to complete the walk-and-turn test, the

defendant missed heel-to-toe steps, failed to keep his hands by

his side, failed to count out loud, did not walk in a straight

line, and improperly turned.     While performing the one-legged

stand test, the defendant had to grab onto his pants pocket to

keep his balance, swayed left and right, failed to count the

numbers in order, missed a few numbers, and then placed his foot

back on the ground and ended the test himself.      The trooper

placed him under arrest for OUI.       An inventory search of the

defendant's car revealed a bottle of Hennessey liquor.

                                   3
    Discussion.   The defendant argues that the Commonwealth's

evidence of intoxication was insufficient.   The Commonwealth

provided ample evidence that allowed a rational trier of fact to

find that the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was

impaired by his consumption of alcohol.   See Commonwealth v.

Dussault, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 542, 545 (2008) (evidence against

defendant "overwhelming" where officer observed erratic driving

and speeding and defendant's eyes were bloodshot, speech was

slurred, breath smelled of alcohol, gait was unsteady, and

liquor was found in the car).   The trooper testified that she

observed the defendant seemingly lose control of his vehicle

while making a turn, go through a red light, and fail to stop

for her cruiser despite activation of her lights, sirens, and

air horn.   In addition to the evidence of the defendant's

driving, the officers' observations of how the defendant looked,

smelled, and acted were sufficient for a rational trier of fact

                                 4
to find that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol.

Id.

                                      Judgment affirmed.

                                      By the Court (Meade,
                                        Hershfang & D'Angelo, JJ.3),

                                      Clerk

Entered:    October 20, 2023.

3   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                  5