There have been several recent court decisions in Massachusetts OUI Law that deserve special attention. Please contact Stephen Jones, your Massachusetts OUI Lawyer, to learn how these decisions affect your case.

OUI Drugs

Commonwealth v. Johnson

59 Mass.App.Ct. 164 (2003)

Admission of a hospital record containing the drug screening test results and not the drug confirmation test results is prejudicial error that requires reversal.

The defendant was found confused, disoriented and in possession of cocaine after he managed to run his car off the road and get stuck in the bushes. After the fire department extricated the defendant from his car, he was transported to the hospital where a "rapid urine screening test" was administered. The screening test came back negative for alcohol, but positive for cocaine, phencyclidine and benzodiazepine. The defendant was charged with operating under the influence of a narcotic drug.

At trial, the Commonwealth introduced the hospital record containing the screening test results. Prominently displayed on the results was the following: "THIS TEST IS A RAPID SCREENING SYSTEM FOR DRUGS OF ABUSE IN URINE. A SECOND METHOD MUST BE USED TO OBTAIN A CONFIRMED ANALYTICAL RESULT." No testimony was offered regarding what the test results meant, for what purposes medical personnel rely upon the test, or the test's limitations that prompted the disclaimer.

Upon review, the Appeals Court held that "such a disclaimer calls the reliability of the test into sufficient question as to create doubt as to whether the record alone can stand competent as proof of the medical facts recited therein." The Court noted that hospital records containing facts relevant to medical history or treatment are ordinarily admissible without the need for, and despite the absence of, testimonial corroboration or explanation. "Here, by contrast, (the) qualifying language … itself raised sufficient doubt" as to whether hospital personnel could rely upon the screening test in providing treatment. Therefore, the hospital record was not admissible under G.L. c. 233, § 79 and the Court reversed the OUI conviction.

The Court addressed two other evidentiary issues: (1) A "pill book" (purchased at CVS) was not an appropriate subject for judicial notice and was not admissible as a learned treatise; and (2) Having a law enforcement officer explain the meaning of abbreviations contained in the hospital record is probably not a good idea - the better course would be to stipulate to the meaning of the abbreviations or bring in the person who wrote them in the record.

Contact your MA OUI Lawyer to learn more about how these OUI Case decisions affect you.

More