Commonwealth v. Veronneau
90 Mass. App. Ct. 477
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- On May 23, 2013, trooper stopped defendant Robert Veronneau after observing high speed, lane changes, driving in the breakdown lane, and swerving in heavy rain.
- Trooper noticed glossy eyes and alcohol odor; defendant denied drinking but later admitted to three vodka tonics after arrest.
- Trooper observed poor balance (grabbing the car), and defendant failed two of three field sobriety tests; breath test about an hour after stop read .07.
- Trooper discovered defendant was carrying a loaded Beretta .25 with a round chambered and safety off; defendant had a carry license; trooper secured the gun.
- In District Court (bench trial), judge convicted defendant of carrying a loaded firearm while under the influence (FUI), found not guilty of operating under the influence (OUI) and negligent operation, and imposed one year unsupervised probation with a firearms-surrender condition.
- Defendant appealed chiefly arguing the FUI conviction was inconsistent with the OUI acquittal, challenged judicial notice and sufficiency of evidence, and asserted the probation firearm condition violated the Second Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FUI conviction is inconsistent with acquittal for OUI | Prosecution: statutes both require being "under the influence," but concern different activities; impairment may differ by task | Veronneau: same phrase requires same degree of intoxication; cannot be guilty of FUI but not OUI | Court: No legal inconsistency; different instrumentalities require different assessments of impairment, so both findings can stand |
| Whether judge improperly took judicial notice that guns are more dangerous than cars | Prosecution: judge properly evaluated risk of carrying loaded firearm when assessing impairment relative to activity | Veronneau: judge took judicial notice of a disputed fact (guns inherently more dangerous) beyond the record | Court: Comments were fact-finder reasoning, not judicial notice of an external fact; no error |
| Sufficiency of evidence that defendant was "under the influence" for FUI | Prosecution: trooper testimony, failed sobriety tests, admission of drinking, .07 BAC support impairment in carrying firearm | Veronneau: passing one test, weather/footwear could explain failures; evidence insufficient | Court: Evidence was ample for judge to find impairment as to carrying a loaded firearm |
| Legality of probation condition requiring surrender of firearms under Second Amendment | Prosecution: probation condition reasonably related to sentencing and public safety given the offense | Veronneau: condition infringes Second Amendment right to bear arms | Court: Condition permissible; Second Amendment is not absolute and probation conditions may limit rights if reasonably related to probation goals |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (establishing view to take evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Connolly, 394 Mass. 169 ("under the influence" means impairment to any degree for OUI)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 452 Mass. 142 (distinguishing legal vs. factual inconsistency in verdicts)
- Commonwealth v. Randolph, 438 Mass. 290 (preservation and harmless-error principles)
- Commonwealth v. McGhee, 472 Mass. 405 (void-for-vagueness standards and comprehensible normative standard)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment is not unlimited)
- Commonwealth v. Lapointe, 435 Mass. 455 (probation conditions may impinge rights if reasonably related to sentencing goals)