Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedure Notice 5A topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court reviews dismissal based on written‑notice requirement for independent medical exam in OUI case
Summary
The Commonwealth urged the Appeals Court to reverse a trial judge’s dismissal in an OUI prosecution, arguing the defendant had received oral notice and a signed copy of the §5A form during booking.
The Commonwealth argued before the appeals panel that the trial court erred in dismissing an operating‑under‑the‑influence prosecution after finding noncompliance with the written‑notice requirement of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 263 §5A.
Christopher Nichols, appearing for the Commonwealth, told the panel that the defendant received oral notice at booking and signed a copy of the §5A form; he said the form was later placed with the defendant’s property and likely returned to him on release. Nichols argued dismissal was not the appropriate remedy and that the trial court had not made findings sufficient for appellate review about whether the noncompliance was prejudicial under the governing cases (the Commonwealth cited Gruska and others at argument).
Defense counsel and the trial court, by contrast, concluded the written‑notice component had not been meaningfully provided — the judge characterized the encounter as effectively a "sign‑here" interaction and found the defendant had only a few seconds with the form. The trial court dismissed the charge; the Commonwealth urged the Appeals Court either to reverse or remand for further findings, arguing alternatives (lesser sanctions, suppression limited to post‑notice evidence) are available.
The panel examined video in the record and pressed counsel on whether the booking video showed signs of intoxication, and whether the record contains enough factual findings to determine whether the failure to provide posted or retained written notice was prejudicial under existing precedent. Counsel discussed potential remedies, including remand for written findings.
The court took the arguments under advisement and indicated remand could be appropriate if the appellate record lacks the factual detail needed to assess prejudice or remedy.
Why it matters: Section 5A establishes a statutory notice intended to preserve evidence for defendants who may seek an independent medical exam; the remedy for noncompliance can range from no sanction to dismissal depending on prejudice and factual context.
