Commonwealth v. Engstrom, 122 N.E.3d 1098 (2019)

Citation: Commonwealth v. Engstrom, 122 N.E.3d 1098 (2019)
Parent Document: Commonwealth v. Engstrom, 122 N.E.3d 1098 (2019)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2019-01-03
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7178502/commonwealth-v-engstrom/ ↗

Full Text

1,016 chars

The defendant concedes that "[t]he fact that the jury ultimately did not convict [her] of OUI does not preclude their consideration of the evidence of intoxication in considering the negligent operation charge." Ross, 92 Mass. App. Ct. at 380. She nevertheless contends that "in this case ... the evidence of intoxication was not sufficient to overcome the lack of any other evidence of driving to endanger." To the contrary, the record includes ample evidence of the defendant's intoxicated state. This is not, as the defendant characterizes it, a case wherein the evidence of her inability to perform the field sobriety tests and the trooper's testimony regarding the nip bottle stand alone as the only evidence of her intoxication. Indeed, in these circumstances, when the accident on a dry roadway is considered "in light of the evidence of the defendant's intoxication, a reasonable jury could conclude that [s]he acted negligently." Id. at 380-381. See Commonwealth v. Daley, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 254, 256 (2006).

Other Sections in This Document (17)

Full Text