Commonwealth v. Rarick (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-047-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 13-P-1883 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. KEITH R. RARICK. No. 13-P-1883. Berkshire. January 29, 2015. – May 8, 2015. Present: Kafker, Grainger, & Agnes, JJ. Motor Vehicle, Operating under the influence. Practice, Criminal, Required finding. Intoxication. Evidence, Intoxication. Complaint received and sworn to in the Northern Berkshire Division of the District Court Department on January 4, 2013. The case was tried before Rita S. Koenigs, J. John O. Mitchell for the defendant. Megan L. Rose, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. AGNES, J. The defendant, Keith R. Rarick, was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, second or subsequent offense, in violation 2 of G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1).1 On appeal, the defendant contends that during the trial of the underlying offense, at the close of the Commonwealth’s case, his motion for a required finding of not guilty should have been allowed because the evidence that he was under the influence of alcohol was not sufficient to warrant a finding by the jury that this element had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Because we conclude that the evidence was sufficient both at the close of the Commonwealth’s case and at the close of the evidence, we affirm. Background. a. The Commonwealth’s case. While on patrol at approximately 3:04 A.M. in the early morning of January 1, 2013, special police Officer David Sherman of the Williamstown police department was traveling northbound on Route 7 in a marked cruiser when he passed the defendant’s vehicle headed southbound in the opposite direction. Based on his mounted directional radar system, which he had calibrated earlier that day, Officer Sherman determined that the defendant’s vehicle was traveling fifty-eight miles per hour in a clearly marked forty- 1 After the jury returned a verdict of guilty of the underlying offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the defendant pleaded guilty to the second offense portion of the complaint in accordance with the procedure set forth in G. L. c. 278, § 11A. The judge sentenced the defendant to a two-year term of probation, with conditions that included attendance at a fourteen-day, residential alcohol treatment program, and fines and fees totaling over $ 1,400. 3 five mile per hour speed zone.2 Officer Sherman activated his cruiser’s blue lights and pulled the vehicle over without incident […]