Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals panel hears arguments on sufficiency of evidence in Commonwealth v. Prairie
Summary
An appellate panel considered whether evidence was sufficient to convict Christopher Prairie of operating under the influence and negligent operation after two lane crossings and field sobriety testing; counsel for both sides argued whether issues should have gone to a jury and the case was submitted for decision.
An Appeals Court panel heard oral argument on the sufficiency of the evidence in Commonwealth v. Christopher Prairie (Docket No. 2024P528), addressing whether there was enough proof to sustain convictions for operating under the influence (OUI) and negligent operation of a motor vehicle. After argument from both sides, the panel submitted the case.
Attorney Dan Ciccarolo, representing Christopher Prairie, told the panel that the trial evidence did not establish that Prairie drove in an unsafe manner or possessed the requisite general intent for the crimes charged. Ciccarolo said the police testimony reported only two lane crossings and described the second crossing as an involuntary action: "sneezes sneezing is a non intentional reflex action," he said, arguing that an involuntary…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
