Commonwealth v. Filoma
79 Mass. App. Ct. 16
Mass. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant Stanley Filoma was convicted by a Superior Court jury of involuntary manslaughter, two counts of aggravated assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon (automobile), and two counts of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor and causing serious bodily injury.
- During Feb. 1, 2004 events in Boston’s Fenway area, Filoma consumed four to six beers and then drove an SUV through crowds, striking five pedestrians and causing death and serious injuries.
- Defendant fled the scene; he was apprehended and police observed signs of intoxication; breath samples later yielded .09% BAC.
- The Commonwealth presented a toxicologist who testified about BAC readings and retrograde extrapolation but did not provide impairment-explanation testimony connecting BAC to driving impairment.
- Trial occurred in 2006 amid post-2003 statutory amendments and Colturi-era interpretations; the case proceeded to appellate review challenging OUI evidence as insufficient to prove impairment.
- The trial judge instructed on OUI elements and allowed a .08 BAC inference without per se instructions; Colturi issued after the trial, affecting interpretation of per se versus impairment evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether breathalyzer results alone without impairment testimony support OUI convictions | Filoma contends proof lacked impairment expert connection | Commonwealth relies on per se inference or impairment theory per Colturi | OUI convictions reversed; impairment proof deficient |
| Whether faulty OUI findings tainted nonalcohol-related offenses | Nonalcohol offenses tainted by implied impairment evidence | Nonalcohol offenses independent of OUI evidence | Nonalcohol convictions affirmed; no error in light of instructions |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking an accident instruction | Accident defense instruction could have been warranted | Evidence did not support accident instruction; omission harmless | No reversible error; instruction not warranted; no ineffective assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Colturi, 448 Mass. 809 (Mass. 2007) (per se OUI via BAC .08+ when proper testimony provided; Colturi elaborates impairment linkage)
- Commonwealth v. Flanagan, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 456 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010) (discusses OUI proof methods under §24L(2) and 2003 amendments)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzales, 443 Mass. 799 (Mass. 2005) (elements of involuntary manslaughter; reckless conduct standard)
- Commonwealth v. Cruzado, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 803 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009) (elements of aggravated assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon)
- Commonwealth v. Jewett, 442 Mass. 356 (Mass. 2004) (accident instruction standard; requires evidence raising possibility of accident)
- Commonwealth v. Douglas, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 643 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009) (substantial risk of miscarriage standard when post-trial developments affect error evaluation)
- Commonwealth v. LeFave, 430 Mass. 169 (Mass. 1999) (substantial risk of miscarriage standard framework)
- Commonwealth v. Gambora, 457 Mass. 715 (Mass. 2010) (harmlessness of counsel omissions under Rule 30 or analogous standards)