24/7 Free DUI Help 413-731-9995

Blog

OUI Retrial on Per Se Violation of Statute Not Precluded by Double Jeopardy Despite Jury Acquittal on Impaired Ability Theory

Posted by Joseph Bernard | Jun 30, 2017 | 0 Comments

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (SJC) issued a decision today, June 30, 2017, in Commonwealth v. Herb holding that the Commonwealth can move forward with a retrial of a defendant for OUI by prosecuting under the per se theory of the statute even though the defendant had been acquitted of the impaired ability theory.

G.L. c. 90 §24, the OUI statute, allows the Commonwealth to prosecute defendants for OUI in two different ways; (1) under a per se theory by showing that a defendant operated a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .08% or greater, or (2) under an impaired ability theory by showing that a defendant operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. To prove a per se violation, the Commonwealth does not need to establish that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Likewise, to prove an impaired ability violation, the Commonwealth does not need to establish that the defendant's blood alcohol content was .08% or greater.

In Commonwealth v. Herb, a defendant was prosecuted at trial under both the per se theory and the impaired ability theory. The jury reached a verdict on the impaired ability theory and found the defendant not guilty. However, because the jury observed information that was meant to be redacted, specifically information indicating that the defendant was charged with a 4th offense OUI, they did not return a verdict on the per se theory as the jury found that this information swayed their decision. The judge accepted the verdict on the impaired ability theory and declared a mistrial on the per se theory. The Commonwealth chose to continue to prosecute the defendant under the per se theory, and issued a new complaint. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

In examining whether this prosecution was in violation of the double jeopardy clause, the SJC reaffirmed that double jeopardy only applies “if there had been some event, such as an acquittal, which terminates the original jeopardy.” “[W]here a verdict does not specifically resolve all the elements of the offense charged, it is defective and cannot operate as either an acquittal or a conviction, and thus does not trigger double jeopardy protections.” Because the impaired ability theory did not resolve a factual element necessary to establish a per se violation --  that the defendant operated a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .08% or greater -- double jeopardy protections were not triggered in this case.

About the Author

Joseph Bernard

Joseph Bernard has practiced in Hampden County, Springfield Massachusetts for over 20 years and reside in Belchertown, Massachusetts.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Fight to protect your future

If found guilty, you may be facing serious penalties and life altering consequences, including jail time, steep fines, court ordered alcohol treatment programs, and community service. In addition, your driver’s license can be suspended for an extended period of time. Depending on the specific circumstances pertaining to your case, your offense may be charged as a felony, which exponentially increases your penalties. Do not sit back and wait for your charges to resolve themselves. Be proactive and call immediately to secure the representation of Attorney Joseph Bernard to resolve your case in the most efficient way possible and with the most favorable outcome available to you.

Locations

Palmer Office

1012 Pleasant St
Palmer, MA 01069
413-283-8445

Springfield Office

1 Monarch Pl Suite 1100
Springfield, MA 01144
413-731-9995

Belchertown Office

5 Jabish St
Belchertown, MA 01007
413-323-6556

Northampton Office

4 Market Street
Northampton, MA 01060
413-731-9995

Menu