Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forensic Evidence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel hears challenge to admission of contested BAC evidence in OUI manslaughter case
Summary
In Commonwealth v. Sanchez, appellant counsel argued that substitute‑chemist testimony about a 0.207 BAC was inadmissible and that its admission likely affected verdicts on OUI‑manslaughter counts; the Commonwealth said the jury rejected the BAC per se theory and other evidence supports harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mary Miles, representing Misael Sanchez, urged the Appeals Court to grant a new trial because testimony by a substitute chemist about an absent analyst's test results was hearsay under the Gordon/Smith line of cases. Miles argued the blood‑alcohol concentration result (0.207) was critical and that without admissible BAC evidence the jury could not have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the combined OUI‑manslaughter theory.
The prosecutor, Nelson Bridal, responded that the jury’s verdict indicated it did not accept the BAC evidence for the per se theory and that other evidence — eyewitness accounts of high speed, hospital records, odor of alcohol and an officer's observations — would allow the court to affirm under the harmless‑error standard. Bridal said the trial was largely “an all or nothing” fight over the BAC testing and that precedent allows the court to affirm if the conviction stands without the tainted evidence.
The justices questioned both sides about how the jury used the different theories on the verdict slip and whether a retrial or entry of a lesser included offense would be appropriate if the BAC ruling required reversal. The panel took the matter under advisement.
