Commonwealth v. Jones, 464 Mass. 16

Background

Defendant convicted of operating under influence per G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1) (a) (1) after police stopped a truck driven by him with odor of alcohol and observable impairment.
Officers observed driver unsteady, bloodshot eyes, incontinence, and a partially consumed 40-ounce beer; a cold beer bottle was in view.
Field sobriety test administered; officers believed defendant intoxicated and arrested him at scene.
Prior to trial, defendant moved in limine to admit that he initially declined a breathalyzer, later requested it but was not given one; prosecutor flagged potential prejudice.
Judge denied the motion in limine; at trial defendant did not proffer or renew objection to this evidence.
Appellate review focused on whether the in limine ruling was error and whether exclusion affected defendant’s defense.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the in limine ruling preserved for appeal?	Whelton/ Keniston preservation rule applies.	In limine denial preserved error because it sought admission of evidence.	No preservation; failure to object at trial.
Whether the proposed recantation evidence was admissible and probative to consciousness of innocence.	Recantation could exculpate defendant by showing innocence.	Recantation had probative value outweighed by prejudice and confusion risk.	No abuse of discretion; probative value minimal, prejudice risk high; exclusion proper.
Did exclusion of the recantation evidence deprive defendant of his theory of defense?	Exclusion hampered defense strategy.	Defense theory still presented through other testimony and arguments.	Not prejudicial; defense theory remained intact.
Did defendant have a right to a breathalyzer and related refusal evidence?	Statute presents rights surrounding admission of refusal evidence and license suspension.	Recantation/refusal evidence could be admitted under strategy; breathalyzer not a right.	Defendant had no right to a police-administered breathalyzer; refusal evidence limited by statute; recantation potential not required for admissibility here.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Alphas, 430 Mass. 8 (1999) (preservation of error requirements; limine rulings depend on trial context)
Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24 (1998) (motion in limine not preserving appellate rights absent trial objection)
Commonwealth v. Keniston, 423 Mass. 304 (1996) (preservation principles for evidentiary rulings)
Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (1984) (limine rulings may change as trial unfolds; context matters)
Commonwealth v. Dunn, 407 Mass. 798 (1990) (trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings)
Commonwealth v. Rosa, 422 Mass. 18 (1996) (probative value vs. prejudice/confusion in evidence admissibility)
Commonwealth v. Beausoleil, 397 Mass. 206 (1986) (trial court authority to exclude prejudicial or confusing evidence)
Commonwealth v. Cruz, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 393 (2001) (limitations on marginally relevant, time-consuming evidence)
Commonwealth v. Espada, 450 Mass. 687 (2008) (consciousness of innocence has limited evidentiary value)
Commonwealth v. Alano, 388 Mass. 871 (1983) (no inherent right to police-administered breathalyzer; statute context)
Commonwealth v. Aviles, 461 Mass. 60 (2011) (objection preservation when judge assures rights saved)
Commonwealth v. Connors, 447 Mass. 313 (2006) (waiver of rights and self-incrimination considerations)
Commonwealth v. Lopez, 426 Mass. 657 (1998) (presumption of validity of prior pleas; police protocol context)
Commonwealth v. Hesketh, 386 Mass. 153 (1982) (lay witnesses may testify to apparent intoxication, not ultimate guilt)
Commonwealth v. Sudderth, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 317 (1994) (lay opinion on intoxication admissible within limits)
Commonwealth v. Atencio, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 747 (1981) (lay opinion admissible regarding intoxication)