102 N.E.3d 1032
Mass. App. Ct.2018Background
- At ~2:00 A.M. on April 4, 2014, police responded to a rollover crash; an overturned vehicle registered to Cortney Street had its wheels still spinning and a downed light pole nearby.
- Officers found Street ~10 feet from the vehicle, barefoot, shaking and crying but coherent and uninjured; Officer Orlando detected alcohol on her breath and concluded she was intoxicated.
- Street made several statements to police identifying herself and stating she was the vehicle operator; one response to a leading question about drinking was suppressed as involuntary.
- Street was transported to the hospital; a blood sample taken shortly after the crash showed a blood alcohol concentration above .14 percent.
- At trial, Street was convicted of operating under the influence (per se .08% or greater) and negligent operation; she appealed arguing involuntary statements, impaired cross-examination of the Commonwealth's expert, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to suppress statements as involuntary | Statements were voluntary and admissible | Street argued all post-accident statements were involuntary and should be suppressed | Only one response (to a leading question about drinking) was suppressed; other statements admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Identification of defendant | Identification testimony and records support admission | Street argued her in-field ID should have been suppressed | Admission of in-field ID was harmless given other strong identity evidence (hospital records, registration) |
| Admission of driving-route statement (raised on appeal) | Commonwealth relied on it to show operation | Street argued it should have been suppressed; issue not raised below | Not preserved; reviewed for miscarriage of justice and found no substantial risk given other evidence of operation |
| Cross-examination of Commonwealth's expert | Expert properly relied on hospital records; cross-examination covered limits | Street argued she lacked meaningful cross-examination because expert could not opine on hospital blood-draw procedures | No error; expert permissibly based opinion on admissible hospital records and defense cross-examined on procedural limits |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel should have suppressed prior ID, objected to in-court ID, and requested humane practice instruction | Counsel's choices may reflect reasonable trial strategy; other evidence independently showed operation | No ineffective assistance shown on record; even assuming deficient performance, no prejudice given independent proof of operation |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tyree, 455 Mass. 676 (harmlessness standard for erroneous admissions)
- Commonwealth v. Cromwell, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 436 (registered owner as circumstantial evidence of operation)
- Commonwealth v. Neves, 474 Mass. 355 (harmless error analysis regarding identity and operation evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Freeman, 352 Mass. 556 (preservation and review for miscarriage of justice)
- Commonwealth v. Waite, 422 Mass. 792 (expert opinion may rely on independently admissible facts)
- Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 670 (use of hospital records as basis for toxicology expert opinion)
- Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- Commonwealth v. Peloquin, 437 Mass. 204 (difficulties of raising ineffective assistance on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 548 (procedural note on ineffective assistance claims)
- Commonwealth v. Wadlington, 467 Mass. 192 (humane practice instruction discussion)
- Commonwealth v. Dew, 478 Mass. 304 (identification "good reason" exception referenced)