Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that, under the applicable breathalyzer regulations, only the lower of two adequate breath-sample results may be introduced in the Commonwealth's prosecution of an OUI charge when the results differ within the permitted margin. The court upheld the Secretary of Public Safety's authority to establish this rule and rejected the Commonwealth's argument that the higher result was admissible as corroborating evidence. The case was remanded for entry of a judgment affirming the District Court judge's ruling on the motion in limine.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Secretary of Public Safety validly exercised delegated authority by requiring that, when two adequate breath samples differ within 0.02 blood alcohol content units, the lower sample be taken as the defendant's blood alcohol level.
- Whether the Commonwealth could introduce both adequate breath-sample results in an OUI prosecution to have the higher result corroborate the lower result.
Holdings
- The regulation requiring use of the lower of two adequate breath samples when the results differ within 0.02 blood alcohol content units is valid because it reasonably relates to the conduct of breathalyzer tests and does not conflict with G. L. c. 90, § 24K.
- In this prosecution, the Commonwealth could not introduce the higher adequate breath-sample result merely to corroborate the lower result; only the lower result designated by the regulatory framework was admissible for the purpose asserted.
Key quotations
“Thus, where the regulation reasonably relates to, and does not conflict with the statute, the Secretary’s regulation amounts to a permissible exercise of his authority.” (213)
“The imposition of a two-part procedure to obtain a defendant’s blood alcohol level essentially pertains to the validity of the breathalyzer test and does not speak of evidentiary value.” (213-214)
Factual background
The defendant was arrested on February 29, 2008, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and operating with a suspended license. He consented to a breathalyzer test that produced adequate breath-sample readings of .09 percent and .10 percent, with a .15 percent calibration standard reading between them. Because the two adequate samples differed by no more than 0.02 blood alcohol content units, the applicable regulation designated the lower sample as the defendant's blood alcohol level.
Procedural history
The defendant was charged in the District Court with operating under the influence and operating with a suspended license. After the defendant consented to breathalyzer testing, the Commonwealth moved in limine to admit both adequate breath-sample results. The District Court judge ruled that only the lower result could be introduced. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed and remanded to the county court for entry of a judgment affirming that ruling.
Remand instructions
Remand to the county court for entry of a judgment affirming the District Court judge's decision denying the Commonwealth's motion in limine.