OUI appeal: defense argues breathalyzer result was dispositive and raised Hallinan standard for withdrawing plea

In Commonwealth v. Griswold the panel considered whether an allegedly inadmissible breathalyzer result induced the defendant to plead guilty to operating under the influence of liquor (OUI) second, and whether that would justify granting a new trial or withdrawing the plea under the Hallinan standard.

Defense counsel (Mr. Zendroski) argued the 0.20 breathalyzer result was the ‘‘crown jewel’’ of the Commonwealth’s case and that the defendant had a colorable medical defense—chronic lower back injury—that likely affected his performance on field sobriety tests. Counsel submitted affidavits from trial counsel and the defendant describing why they would have pursued a trial absent the breath test evidence.

Assistant District Attorney Rosella Nicole Corey urged the court to affirm the motion judge’s denial of a new trial. The Commonwealth emphasized other indicia of impairment in the record—officer observations, the defendant’s statements and booking behavior—and urged that the motion judge applied the correct standard and had the opportunity to evaluate the credibility of the affidavits. The prosecutor also noted the case spanned a ten‑month pre‑trial period, which the judge could weigh.

The panel asked whether an evidentiary hearing would be required to resolve credibility disputes about plea counsel’s decisions; the parties agreed the record and affidavits could be sufficient here, but counsel acknowledged testimony from trial counsel could clarify the decisionmaking process. The court took the case under advisement and did not announce a ruling after argument.