Motor vehicles – OUI – Second offense

Listen to this article

Where a jury convicted a defendant of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) and negligent operation of a motor vehicle, the judgments must be vacated because the defendant was unfairly prejudiced by the admission of inadmissible OUI second offense evidence.

“Following a trial in the District Court, a jury convicted the defendant of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) pursuant to G.L.c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1), and negligent operation of a motor vehicle pursuant to G.L.c. 90, §24(2)(a). After waiving his right to a jury trial on so much of the OUI charge alleging a second offense, the defendant was convicted on the second or subsequent portion of the OUI charge. The defendant appeals. We vacate the judgments and set the verdicts and subsequent offense finding aside. …

“The defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for allowing the defendant’s medical records to go to the jury without redacting the reference to the OUI second offense charge. …

“We have previously held that violations of G.L.c. 278, §11A, materially contributed to a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice requiring reversal. …

“We disagree with the Commonwealth’s contention that the defendant was not unfairly prejudiced by the admission of the inadmissible OUI second offense evidence because the case against the defendant was strong. Although there was evidence of the defendant’s intoxication, it did ‘not rise to the level of overwhelming evidence.’ … The defendant here admitted to drinking a beer at lunch and a twenty-five-ounce can of beer at some other point, and the car accident took place around 4:15 P.M. Furthermore, there was no evidence of any failed field sobriety tests (FSTs). … We conclude the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was not so strong that we are left ‘unconvinced that no harm resulted.’ … Ultimately, as to both the OUI conviction and the negligent operation conviction, we are left with a ‘serious doubt whether the jury verdict[s] would have been the same’ had proper redactions of the medical records been made. …

“Accordingly, we vacate the judgments, set aside the verdicts and the subsequent offense finding, and remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”

Commonwealth v. McCollum (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-025-26) (Docket No. 24-P-1308) (March 13, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.