Commonwealth v. Ackerman, SJC 11983

Ackerman was charged with OUI (second offense) and a marked lanes violation after a single-vehicle crash in which her car struck a utility pole and rolled.
At the hospital she received CT scans, multiple tests, and a blood alcohol test; medical records documented observations suggesting intoxication and that she was agitated and given Ativan.
Ackerman moved in limine to exclude the blood alcohol result from the medical records on Confrontation Clause grounds; the District Court judge granted the motion and denied reconsideration.
The Commonwealth sought review, filed a G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition to the single justice of the SJC, and the single justice allowed the petition, holding the blood alcohol test admissible as part of treatment records.
The single justice vacated the trial judge’s exclusion; Ackerman appealed to the full court; the SJC affirmed the single justice’s judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of hospital blood alcohol test under G. L. c. 233, § 79	Test was a routine part of medical treatment and thus admissible as a medical record	Blood alcohol test is testimonial/used for prosecution and therefore inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause	Admissible: test was performed in course of treatment and part of a battery of diagnostic steps; § 79 applies
Whether the single justice abused discretion in allowing Commonwealth interlocutory review	Single justice may review interlocutory rulings and did not err in exercising discretion	Interlocutory Commonwealth appeals are rare; should not have been allowed	No abuse of discretion; SJC will not disturb the single justice’s judgment
Requirement that medical records state purpose for BAC test to be § 79 treatment records	Commonwealth: explicit purpose not required where context shows test was for treatment/assessment	Ackerman: absence of stated medical reason suggests forensic purpose	Court: context (accident, agitation, observations of intoxication, need to know before sedative) shows test was for treatment, so § 79 covers it
Whether S.J.C. Rule 2:21 memo route was required after single justice decision	Commonwealth sought to limit review; defendant filed memorandum under Rule 2:21	Commonwealth argued different procedural route	Rule 2:21 does not apply because single justice granted relief; appeal proceeds in ordinary appellate course

Commonwealth v. Dube, 413 Mass. 570 (1992) (§ 79 permits certified hospital records related to treatment and history)
Commonwealth v. DiMonte, 427 Mass. 233 (1998) (records that relate directly to treatment should be admitted even if they incidentally bear on liability)
Commonwealth v. Dargon, 457 Mass. 387 (2010) (liberal construction of § 79; treatment-related records admissible)
Commonwealth v. Narea, 454 Mass. 1003 (2009) (Commonwealth interlocutory appeals are rare; single justice discretion reviewed for abuse)
Commonwealth v. Clark, 454 Mass. 1001 (2009) (single justice rulings may be final judgments from which appeal lies)
McMenimen v. Passatempo, 452 Mass. 178 (2008) (procedural principles regarding finality and appeals)