Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or greater and sentenced to a one-year term of probation and ninety-day loss of license. The principal issue in this case was whether an annual certification, and accompanying diagnostic records, attesting to the proper functioning of the breathalyzer machine used to test defendant's blood alcohol content were admissible in a criminal prosecution for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The court held that the certification and supporting records were created as part of a regulatory program providing standardized mechanisms for the routine maintenance of all breathalyzer machines throughout the Commonwealth and therefore, they were admissible evidence as business records pursuant to G.L.c. 233, 78, and were not testimonial statements within the scope of protection afforded by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Accordingly, their admission in this case was not error and the conviction affirmed.

Defendant appealed a conviction of murder in the first degree where the predicate felony for felony-murder was an armed home invasion. Defendant was also convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm. Defendant raised several issues on appeal. The court reversed the conviction on the indictment charging armed home invasion where the indictment failed to specify the offense for which the defense was charged but affirmed defendant's conviction of felony-murder and illegal possession of a firearm. The court also held that, in light of the circumstances, the admission of the threat at issue did not unfairly prejudice the defendant and there was no error in admitting it. The court further held that self-defense was inapplicable to a charge of felony-murder so any error in the self-defense and excessive force instructions would have had no impact on felony-murder deliberations; that defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel; and that the judge did not err in deciding his motion for a new trial without first holding an evidentiary hearing.