Com. v. Boos
| Citation | 256 N.E.2d 316,357 Mass. 68 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Miriam BOOS. |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1970 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Leonard M. Frisoli, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for the commonwealth.
Ralph F. Champa, Jr., Somerville, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, KIRK, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.
The defendant was indicted on January 8, 1969, for operating a motor vehicle without the authority of the owner after her right to operate had been revoked, and prior to the restoration of such right to operate or issuance to her of a new license to operate. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that no citation was issued, delivered or mailed to her within a reasonable time in accordance with G.L. c. 90C, § 2. The motion was allowed and the Commonwealth, pursuant to G.L. c. 278, § 28E, appealed.
The facts are not in dispute. On October 12, 1968, an automobile owned by one Foti was used without his authority and involved in an accident in Somerville. Sergeant Little, an officer of the Medford police department, was requested to investigate the accident, and was informed by one Martha Warren, who had been found in the automobile, that the defendant had operated the automobile immediately before the accident. The officer thereafter learned that the defendant's right to operate had been suspended and he obtained a report on the accident from the Somerville police department. On November 1, 1968, some twenty days after the accident, Sergeant Little mailed the defendant a citation for unauthorized use of an automobile after revocation of license. Becauses of a mistake in the date of the accident on the citation, a second citation was mailed on November 4. The defendant inquired of the police concerning the citation and was told 'to pay no attention' and 'she would be notified.'
The defendant's motion to dismiss was based on the provisions of G.L. c. 90C, § 2, as amended through St.1968, c. 725, §§ 1 and 2: General Laws c. 90C, § 1, as amended through St.1967, c. 432, § 2, defines '(a)utomobile law violation' as 'any violation of aby statute, * * * relating to the operation or control of motor vehicles.'
The Commonwealth does not contend that the citation was issued, mailed or delivered to the defendant in accordance with the requirements of G.L. c. 90C, § 2. Rather it argues that the defence of c. 90C, § 2, is unavailable to the defendant because she has been indicted for committing a crime against property, under G.L. c. 266, § 28, to which the provisions of c. 90C, § 2, are inapplicable. We agree. Because § 28 'relates' to the operation or control of automobiles does not automatically bring the offence within c. 90C, §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Jones
...with a violation long after it occurs. Commonwealth v. Gorman, 356 Mass. 355, 357-358, 251 N.E.2d 892 (1969). Commonwealth v. Boos, 357 Mass. 68, 70, 256 N.E.2d 316 (1970). The original citation issued to this defendant was clearly sufficient to notify him that he would be charged with homi......
-
Burke v. Com.
...v. Krasner, 358 Mass. 727, 267 N.E.2d 208 (1971); Commonwealth v. White, 358 Mass. 488, 265 N.E.2d 473 (1970); Commonwealth v. Boos, 357 Mass. 68, 256 N.E.2d 316 (1970) (motions dismissing the Commonwealth's cases). See also Commonwealth v. Miller, 366 Mass. 387, 318 N.E.2d 909 (1974); Comm......
-
Commonwealth v. Mansur
..."assure uniform treatment of violators." Commonwealth v. Mullins, 367 Mass. 733, 736, 328 N.E.2d 503 (1975). See Commonwealth v. Boos, 357 Mass. 68, 70, 256 N.E.2d 316 (1970).Pursuant to G. L. c. 90C, a statutory violation may be considered either a "civil motor vehicle infraction" or a cri......
-
Com. v. Giannino
...We agree that it does not apply. The provisions of G.L. c. 90C, § 2, apply to 'automobile law violations.' Commonwealth v. Boos, 357 Mass. 68, 70, 256 N.E.2d 316 (1970). Such violations are defined in G.L. c. 90C, § 1, as amended through St.1967, c. 432, § 2, as 'any violation of any statut......