Commonwealth v. Burnham
90 Mass. App. Ct. 483
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- On November 24, 2013, Burnham was the driver in a single-car accident; Easthampton officers responded, attended to an initially unresponsive driver, and summoned an ambulance that transported him to Baystate Medical Center.
- Officers issued citations that night for operating after suspension and marked lanes; they did not observe indicia of intoxication at the scene and concluded their investigation after mailing the marked-lanes citation.
- The officers did not accompany Burnham to the hospital, did not arrest him, did not question him about alcohol, and found no alcohol in the vehicle.
- Months later, after Burnham’s unrelated February 23, 2014 arrest in Northampton, a prosecutor reopened inquiry, obtained Burnham’s Baystate medical records (including a toxicology report showing a 0.18% ethanol level for the night of the Easthampton incident), and on April 16, 2014 directed Officer Gribi to issue and deliver an OUI citation at Burnham’s home.
- Burnham moved to dismiss the indictment for OUI, arguing the citation was not issued in compliance with G. L. c. 90C, § 2 (the “no‑fix” statute); after an evidentiary hearing the Superior Court allowed the motion; the Commonwealth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Burnham's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the four‑and‑a‑half month delay in issuing an OUI citation violated G. L. c. 90C, § 2 | Delay justified under § 2 exception "additional time reasonably necessary to determine the nature of the violation" because prosecutor’s later investigation uncovered BAC evidence | Investigation at scene had ended; officers had no indicia of intoxication and did not reasonably need more time; delayed citation deprived defendant of prompt, definite notice | Held: Violation — second exception inapplicable; delay not reasonably necessary and did not provide prompt, definite notice |
| Whether the third exception (court‑found circumstance justifies failure) applies (implicit notice due to seriousness) | Seriousness of single‑car accident and later discovery of toxicology justify flexible application of statute | Single‑car accident without arrest, questioning, notice, or other factors did not impart implicit notice; no evidence defendant was aware of possible OUI charge | Held: Third exception inapplicable — facts do not show implicit or sufficient notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pappas, 384 Mass. 428 (statute’s purposes: prevent manipulation and provide prompt, definite notice)
- Commonwealth v. Provost, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 479 (delay analysis is fact‑specific; investigative necessity can justify delay)
- Commonwealth v. Barbuto, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 941 (delay justified where further investigation and seriousness supported issuance delay)
- Commonwealth v. Babb, 389 Mass. 275 (serious accidents/arrests can satisfy notice requirement despite delayed citation)
- Commonwealth v. Riley, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 234 (earlier citation for other motor infractions does not necessarily provide notice of potential OUI charge)