A defendant was tried and convicted of operating under the influence of alcohol (OUI) and negligent operation of a motor vehicle.
This was, in fact, the defendant’s second alleged OUI offense.
He opted for a jury trial on the OUI issue and a bench trial on the “second or subsequent offense” charge.
This is known as a bifurcated trial.
Under Massachusetts’ law, if a defendant requests a bifurcated trial on a second or subsequent OUI offense, during the first portion of the trial, “no part of the complaint or indictment which alleges that the crime charged is a second or subsequent offense shall be read or shown to the jury or referred to in any manner.” See G. L. c. 278, § 11A.
During the defendant’s OUI trial, the prosecutor introduced medical records from the night of the defendant’s arrest.
At the top of the records was a hospital note that read “OUI/LIQUOR, 2nd OFFENSE.”
Although reviewed by the defendant’s attorney prior to trial, the language was not redacted from the records before they given to the jury.
The jury convicted the defendant of OUI and he appealed the verdict.
Today the Appeals Court issued a slip opinion vacating the judgment.
According to the Appeals Court,
We conclude the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was not so strong that we are left “unconvinced that no harm resulted.” Ultimately, as to both the OUI conviction and the negligent operation conviction, we are left with a “serious doubt whether the jury verdict[s] would have been the same” had proper redactions of the medical records been made. (Citations omitted.)
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.