COMMONWEALTH v. DEBORAH RUTH LUIZ No. 89-P-203 Appeals Court of Massachusetts 28 Mass. App. Ct. 973; 552 N.E.2d 577; 1990 Mass. App. LEXIS 204 Argued November 20, 1989 April 12, 1990 Facts: The defendant appeals her conviction under an indictment in four counts for motor vehicle homicide. Among her other related convictions, which are not the subjects of the appeal, is one for driving to endanger. The charges arise out of an accident in which four children, including the defendant's only child, were killed. Her principal contention on appeal is that the judge's instructions on the element of the offense of motor vehicle homicide relating to operating while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, to which she made a timely objection at trial, were fatally flawed. The judge failed to instruct, that to find the defendant guilty, the jury would have to believe that the defendant's consumption of alcohol diminished her capacity to operate her vehicle safely. Instead, the judge told the jury that "being under the influence means that the defendant at the time was influenced in some perceptible degree by the intoxicating liquor that she had taken . . . It doesn't mean that she couldn't drive the car and drive it safely . . . ." Defendant appealed from her conviction for motor vehicle homicide, rendered in the trial court. Issue: Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the elements of the offense of motor vehicle homicide relating to operating while under the influence of intoxicating liquor? Discussion: This court held that in the instant case since the defendant not only objected to the erroneous instruction but she made a specific request for the correct instruction the issue, therefore, is not whether there was a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice but whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Applying that standard this court held that the defendant should have a new trial. This court found that although there was evidence that defendant was intoxicated at the time of the accident, there was uncertainty regarding the degree of intoxication. This court further found that under the circumstances, it was possible that the jury believed that defendant's intoxication was not at such a level that it diminished her ability to operate her vehicle. Thus, this court found that defendant could have been harmed by the judge's failure to give the correct jury instruction to which she was entitled. Conclusion: This court hence reversed the trial court’s judgment and set aside the verdict. Disclaimer: These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5
Not yet Rated
