Com. v. Shea
| Decision Date | 30 October 1969 |
| Citation | 252 N.E.2d 336,356 Mass. 358 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Ronald L. SHEA. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Francis X. Bellotti, Quincy, for defendant.
Joseph R. Welch, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK, SPIEGEL, and REARDON, JJ.
The defendant was tried and convicted under a complaint charging him with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. G.L. c. 90, § 24.
There was evidence of the following: The defendant was arrested in Randolph and taken to the Randolph police station. At the time and place of the arrest no citation was given to him. Thereafter he was taken to the Blue Hills Division of the Metropolitan District Commission Police where a 'breathalyzer' test was administered. Following the test, the defendant was returned to the Randolph police station. At that time, according to the defendant, he was given the citation. 1
1. The defendant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that there was no compliance with G.L. c. 90C, § 2, requiring the original of the citation to be given to a defendant at the time and place of the violation. He also presented certain requests for rulings based on the same ground. Both the motion and the requests were denied, subject to the defendant's exceptions. There was no error. In Commonwealth v. Gorman, Mass.1969, 251 N.E.2d 892, decided this day, we held that an arrest in circumstances like the present for an automobile law violation does not require the giving of the citation as required by G.L. c. 90C, § 2. The case at bar does not differ in any essential particular from the Gorman case and is governed by it. That the defendant was subsequently given a copy of the citation, rather than the original, does not differentiate the case at bar from the Gorman case in any significant respect. The rationale of that case is that the arrest makes notice unnecessary.
2. There was no court appointed stenographer at the trial in the Superior Court. The defendant, however, at his own expense had employed the services of a stenographer 'who was present in the courtroom for the purpose of recording a transcript of the proceedings.' The judge, subject to the defendant's exception, refused to allow the stenographer to record or make written notes of the proceedings. There is nothing to indicate that the stenographer was not competent and the judge did not base his ruling on this ground. This ruling was erroneous.
General Laws c. 221, § 91B, inserted by St.1965, c. 585, in pertinent part, reads:
The statute gave to the defendant the right to have a stenographer present when the court has failed to provide one if he is willing to incur the expense. The use of the word 'may' does not warrant a construction that a defendant may have a stenographer only in the court's discretion. 'May' simply makes clear that a defendant is not required to hire a stenographer, but has the option to do so if he sees fit. Any other interpretation would do violence to the plain meaning and sound policy of the statute. Without a stenographic record, the prosecuting of an appeal in which questions of evidence, questions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Jones
...the need for a new citation. Commonwealth v. Mullins, 367 Mass. 733, 736, 328 N.E.2d 503 (1975). Contrast Commonwealth v. Shea, 356 Mass. 358, 360, 252 N.E.2d 336 (1969), and Commonwealth v. Clinton, --- Mass. ---, --- - --- i, 374 N.E.2d 574 The defendant also was not harmed by the nolle p......
-
Com. v. Gomes
...was qualified to testify as an expert" and that the procedures employed were performed properly and reliably. Commonwealth v. Shea, 356 Mass. 358, 361, 252 N.E.2d 336 (1969). Therefore, the defendant's various attacks alleging infirmities in the performance of the testing or the skill or kn......
-
Blazo v. Superior Court
...the wherewithal may provide at his own expense for attendance of a stenographer and later for a transcription. Commonwealth v. Shea, 356 Mass. 358, 252 N.E.2d 336 (1969). Under the reasoning of the Transcript Cases, the defendants here are entitled to some comparable facilities at public ex......
-
Katz v. Com.
...1067 (1978). The landlord did not exercise his right to employ a private stenographer. See G.L. c. 221, § 91B; Commonwealth v. Shea, 356 Mass. 358, 360-361, 252 N.E.2d 336 (1961); cf. Blazo v. Superior Court, 366 Mass. 141, 146-154, 315 N.E.2d 857 (1974) (right of indigent defendant). We ha......