Posts tagged "Hourican"

Commonwealth v. Hourican (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-060-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us       13‑P‑212                                        Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  PAURIC HOURICAN.     No. 13‑P‑212. Suffolk.     January 6, 2014.  ‑  June 4, 2014. Present:  Green, Sikora, & Carhart, JJ.   Motor Vehicle, Operating under the influence.  Evidence, Breathalyzer test.  Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress.  Regulation.       Complaint received and sworn to in the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on April 20, 2012.   A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Annette Forde, J.   An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Robert J. Cordy, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by him to the Appeals Court.     Brian J. Lenfest for the defendant. John P. Zanini, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     SIKORA, J.  On April 20, 2012, a complaint issued from the Boston Municipal Court charging the defendant, Pauric Hourican, with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (OUI) in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1).  Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress evidence of a postarrest breathalyzer test.  A Boston Municipal Court judge denied the motion, and a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court allowed the defendant’s application for leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal.  See Mass.R.Crim.P. 15(a)(2), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996).  For the following reasons, we reverse. Factual background.  At approximately 2:45 A.M. on April 20, 2012, Officer David Mammone of the Boston police department heard a “loud bang” and turned to see that the defendant had driven his black pickup truck into a police patrol wagon.  The officer observed that the defendant had “glassy eyes” and smelled of alcohol.  After he failed two of three field sobriety tests, police placed him under arrest.  The ensuing voluntary breathalyzer test produced two breath samples measuring .121 and .143 percent blood alcohol content by weight (a difference of .022).  The breath testing instrument was the Alcotest 9510; it employed a gas calibration standard.  A result of .08 percent, if credited by the factfinder, establishes guilt of OUI.  G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1), first par. Motion to suppress.  Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress evidence of the breathalyzer test.  He argued that the test was invalid because .022 percent blood alcohol content units separated his two breath samples.  Title 501 Code Mass. Regs. […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 4, 2014 at 8:38 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,