OUI E. Brookfield District Court April 14, 2014

Found on Google+ as Gregory Casale Attorney At Law or on the web at www.LawWorcester.com

 

 

April 14, 2014
OUI - Not Guilty
Negligent Operation - Not Guilty

No Operation Established

Both of the charges OUI (Operating Under the Influence) and Negligent Operation share the common element Operation. The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Operated the motor vehicle, as well as the other elements of each charge in order to get a conviction. The case that I tried Monday, April 14, 2014 was in the E. Brookfield District Court (more detail description of the case can be found at my website at http://www.lawworcester.com/CM/CaseSummaries/OUI-DUI-Case.asp . For the purpose of this Blog, I would like to discuss the issue of Operation. 

While it may seem obvious whether or not a defendant was driving, the Operator, in the legal sense is not as cut and dry. For instance, a person may be deemed the Operator of a motor vehicle if the key is in the ignition, even if the car is not started. This could include the person that knows they have had too much, pulls over and shuts the car and sleeps it off.  If the key was left in, he's screwed. On the opposite side of the spectrum of legal license, Operation cannot be proven by the driver's own admission, if not corroborated by independant evidence. So a person admits they were the driver and it's not enough. This is the issue that brought about the Not Guilty verdict on Monday's trial.

Responding to an us identified call, police responded to the site of an accident in which a car had gone off the road and struck a street grader parked on the side of the road. The police report indicated that our client admitted that she was the driver of the car. The report further indicated that two males heard the crash and went to check on the driver. Those two males were never identified by name in the police report. Without them present, no one could testify that they observed our client sitting in the vehicle. Besides her admission ther was no corroborating evidence. The officer never said who the car was registered d too. He never said how soon after the accident they came upon the scene. Nothing such as a still warm hood or engine. In other words, no corroborating evidence. 

We never reached the issues of The other elements of OUI Liquor and Negligent Operation were never adjudicated. It was clear after the close of the Commonwealth's evidence that they had failed to establish the element Operation, beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore it was impossible for the Commonwealth to prove each element of either charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The client was found not guilty of OUI as well as Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle.

For Case Summaries, Client Testimonials and information on Attorney Casale and more Massachusetts charges, go to Gregory Casale Attorney At Law or on Google+ at google.com/+GregoryCasale