The Appeals Court has ruled–for about the millionth time–that circumstantial evidence alone can establish “operation” at an OUI trial.
A man appealed his OUI conviction because “there was no testimony either that he was in the front seat or that he had turned on the car.”
According to court documents, prosecution witnesses testified at trial that the defendant was the sole occupant in his car prior to his arrest and that the car was blocking another driver. (It’s unclear exactly how and where the defendant’s car was positioned.)
Additionally, an Andover police officer told jurors that he spoke with the defendant and asked him where he was coming from. The defendant allegedly answered “from Lawrence.”
This testimony, according to the Appeals Court, was enough to infer that the defendant operated the vehicle.
The court made this ruling, “bearing in mind that guilt may be established by circumstantial evidence and that the inferences a jury may draw from the evidence need only be reasonable and possible and need not be necessary or inescapable.”
The court also notes that “an intoxicated person need not have moved the vehicle to violate the statute; instead, we have explained that a vehicle may be operated when standing still.”
Based on the cited case law, the court concluded that “the jury could reasonably infer that the defendant intentionally turned the key [or otherwise started the vehicle] — a mechanical step that alone or in sequence will set in motion the motive power of the vehicle.”
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.