COVID-19 Update: How We Are Serving and Protecting Our Clients

Articles Posted in Motor Vehicle Crimes

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.
Continue reading

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.

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.
Continue reading

Two Boston men were caught by police after a citizen tipped-off investigators. As a result of the tip, police recovered a handgun and crack cocaine when they arrested the pair on Monday, August 8, 2011 as reported in the Boston Herald. Both men pleaded not guilty to firearm and drug charges but were held on bail of $25,000-$30,000.

How will their lawyers likely handle defending them? One area that an aggressive and relentless Boston, Massachusetts criminal defense attorney must vigorously explore in this case is the nature of the tip from the informant, in this case, a citizen as indicated by the Boston Police. In the criminal law area of stop and search or frisk, the veracity, reliability and basis of knowledge prongs must be applied to the tip information. This information must be determined to justify the use of the tip by police to make a stop and/or seizure of evidence by police. If the proper protocols are not followed the lawyer may be able to suppress any evidence from the stop.

How did the tipster, a citizen, learn what he or she claimed to know? Was there any personal observation made by the tipster? What is the tipster’s veracity? In other words, was the tipster credible and worthy of belief under the circumstances with the information provided? Is the citizen providing the tip named or unnamed? Where the identity of an unnamed citizen is not revealed, that person actually is an anonymous informant and different rules apply. Anyone can call the police and make up an accusation. Where the identity of a concerned citizen in not provided to police, the citizen is an unknown informant and his or her reliability must be shown.The reliability of that citizen must be demonstrated by the prosecution an a hearing on the motion to suppress. Commonwealth v. Rojas, 403. Mass. 483, 485 (1988).
Continue reading

If you have been charged with a motor vehicle offense or crime in Massachusetts such as driving a motor vehicle after your driver’s license right to drive in Massachusetts had been suspended or revoked, the Commonwealth must prove certain facts beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict you. You must have operated a motor vehicle at a time of when your driver’s license had been revoked or suspended. Finally, you must have received notice from the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles that your license or right to drive in Massachusetts had been or was about to be suspended or revoked. However, how does a defendant challenge whether or not notice was sent as required? Under the existing law, notice is established primarily by documentary evidence not subject to a defendant’s right to confront and cross examine. How do you to question a document? The recently decided case of Commonwealth v. Parenteau has further clarified the issue of whether or not the government needs to subpoena live witness testimony to prove that someone received notice that their license was about to be suspended or revoked and this change may now benefit the defendant.

Upon the suspension or revocation of your license or right to operate, the Registrar is required to send you written notice to your address as appearing on Registry records, or to your last and usual residence. G.L. c. 90, § 22(d). This notice requirement is usually proven through a certified document from the Registry of Motor Vehicles that they sent a required letter to you explaining that your right to operate would be suspended or revoked by, for example, operating under the influence or by having an outstanding warrant in any Massachusetts court. The Commonwealth is not required to prove that you had actual, personal knowledge of the contents of this notice, however, the judge or jury may consider a properly attested copy of the official record of the Registry of Motor Vehicles as sufficient evidence that your license was suspended, and that they properly notified you.

In a motor vehicle offense case, the Commonwealth must prove receipt either of notice of actual suspension or notice of intent to suspend per the decision of Commonwealth v. Crosscup, 369 Mass. 228, 231 & n.2,339 N.E.2d 731, 734 & n.2 (1975), and the defendant must be permitted to offer evidence of non-receipt (See Commonwealth v. Crosscup, 369 Mass. at 240, 339 N.E.2d at 739. Prior to the Parenteau decision, the Registrar’s proper mailing of a letter was prima facie evidence of receipt by the addressee. Id., 369 Mass. at 239-240, 339 N.E.2d at 738-739. This documentation from the Registry, if properly certified, is usually admitted in evidence against a defendant without the need for live witness testimony from the Registry. Defendants have objected in the past but until the Parenteau case judges in the Commonwealth did not see a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine a witness from the Registry to challenge such documentation. The law has now changed as a result of the ruling in the Parenteau.

In Commonwealth v. Parenteau, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts considered whether a District Court judge erred by admitting in evidence, pursuant to G. L. c. 90, § 22 (d),(1) a certificate from the registry of motor vehicles (registry) attesting to the fact that a notice of license suspension or revocation was mailed to the defendant. The SJC concluded that the admission of the certificate violated the defendant’s rights of confrontation and cross-examination under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In this case, the defendant was arrested for violating G. L. c. 90, § 23,(6) by operating a motor vehicle after his license had been revoked pursuant to G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1) (a) (1), for operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The case proceeded to a jury trial and the defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude documentary evidence from the Registry in the event that such evidence was not supported by witness testimony at trial on the ground that admission of the documentary evidence violated the defendant’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. The trial judge denied the motion. Later, the Commonwealth introduced a certificate from the Registry on which appeared a stamp certifying that notice was sent to the defendant that his license was revoked on a certain date. Ultimately, the jury found the defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle after his license had been revoked for operating while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
Continue reading

Contact Information