Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Appeals Court Oral Arguments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears challenge to OUI conviction over sufficiency, jury selection and Canty testimony
Summary
In Patrick O’Shea’s appeal, defense counsel argued evidence of impairment was insufficient and that juror selection and impermissible testimony (Canty issues) created a substantial risk of miscarriage; the Commonwealth said evidence supported convictions and that errors, if any, were not prejudicial. The panel took the matter under advisement.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard oral argument in Commonwealth v. Patrick O’Shea (Docket No. 24-P-501), where the appellant challenged both the sufficiency of evidence for operating under the influence (OUI) and trial‑level handling of jury empanelment and allegedly impermissible testimony under the Canty line of cases.
Genevieve Henrique, representing O’Shea, argued the record contained only limited indicia of impairment: awkward parking, slurred speech, dishevelment, an empty liquor bottle in the vehicle and a mild odor reported by one officer. Henrique stressed that the defendant’s statement that he had been “drinking at lunch” did not necessarily mean alcohol and that bookings and other record details did not establish impairment beyond a reasonable doubt. She also pressed Canty‑related error: defense counsel argued an officer’s testimony impermissibly opined on impairment and that prior jury voir dire and peremptory‑challenge handling undermined the fairness of the panel.
Middlesex County appellate counsel Dylan Punch, arguing for the Commonwealth, said the totality of circumstances supported the OUI conviction: the defendant was found unconscious in his car for roughly an hour, required a sternum rub to elicit a response, had drool and delayed responses, admitted to drinking, and there were several full nip bottles and one empty. Punch told the panel that jurors 77 and 86 stated unequivocally they could be fair and impartial and that the defendant twice indicated he was satisfied with the jury; the Commonwealth argued that those facts undercut a claim of prejudicial empanelment error.
On Canty, the panel and counsel discussed whether preserved testimony about a doctor or medical training amounted to improper expert testimony or inadmissible hearsay. The Commonwealth conceded some testimony had been erroneous but argued any error was mitigated by jury instructions and by the strength of the evidence.
After questioning both sides, the court took the matter under advisement; no ruling was announced from the bench.
