Commonwealth v. Lyseth

Decision Date10 January 1925
Citation146 N.E. 18,250 Mass. 555
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. LYSETH.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; W. H. Whiting, Judge.

Earl O. Lyseth was convicted of operating an automobile while under influence of intoxicating liquor, and he excepts. Exceptions overruled.

1. Highways k186-Proof that defendant was drunk not essential to conviction.

In prosecution under G. L. c. 90, s 24, for operating automobile while under influence of intoxicating liquor, it was not necessary to prove that defendant was drunk.

2. Highways k186-Statute prohibiting drunken automobile driving held penal.

G. L. c. 90, s 24, prohibiting operation of automobiles while under influence of intoxicating liquor, is penal and regulatory.

3. Highways k186-Whether drunken driver exercised due care to avoid injury to others was immaterial.

In prosecution under G. L. c. 90, s 24, for operating automobile while under influence of intoxicating liquor, it was immaterial whether defendant exercised due care to avoid injury to other travelers.

A. K. Reading, Dist. Atty., and Chas. E. Lawrence, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Boston, for the Commonwealth.

G. W. Pearson and F. H. Pearson, both of Lowell, for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

The defendant having been tried and convicted on a complaint under G. L. c. 90, § 24, for operating an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, contends, that the trial judge erroneously refused to give the following requests as framed:

‘The defendant cannot be found guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor unless the jury find that he was actually driving in a manner different from the way he would have driven had he taken no intoxicating liquor.’

‘If the defendant's manner of driving his motor vehicle under the circumstances of this case was that of a sober, careful man, he cannot be found guilty * * * of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.’

The only statement in the record as to the testimony is, that in addition to other evidence there was evidence that the defendant when seen by the witnesses at the place of the accident within half an hour thereafter, was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. We accordingly assume the jury could find, that the charge in the complaint had been proved.

By G. L. c. 90, § 24:

‘Whoever upon any way operates a motor vehicle * * * while under the influence of intoxicating liquor * * * shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty nor more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not less than two weeks nor more than two years, or both; except that for a second offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Com. v. Cass
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • August 16, 1984
    ...Mass. 22, 160 N.E. 305 (1928) ("operate"); Commonwealth v. Clarke, 254 Mass. 566, 150 N.E. 829 (1926) ("operate"); Commonwealth v. Lyseth, 250 Mass. 555, 146 N.E. 18 (1925) ("under the influence"); Commonwealth v. Henry, 229 Mass. 19, 118 N.E. 224 (1917) ("operate"); Commonwealth v. Horsfal......
  • Thompson v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • December 10, 1929
    ...in this case will show that it is sufficient to prove defendant's intoxication; Hart v. State, 26 Ga.App. 64, 105 S.E. 383; Com. v. Lyseth, 250 Mass. 555, 146 N.E. 18; State v. Hayden, 126 Kan. 799, 271 P. Daniels v. State, 155 Tenn. 549, 296 S.W. 20; Lockhart v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. 597, 1 ......
  • Commonwealth v. Bohigian
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • November 13, 2020
    ...to include imprisonment for at least two weeks but not to exceed two years, maximum fine of $200, or both); Commonwealth v. Lyseth, 250 Mass. 555, 558, 146 N.E. 18 (1925) (interpreting statute punishing driving "while under the influence of intoxicating liquor" in accordance with plain lang......
  • Com. v. Griffin
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • February 27, 1985
    ...on the other hand, which is recognized in common speech, in ordinary experience, and in judicial decisions." Commonwealth v. Lyseth, 250 Mass. 555, 558, 146 N.E. 18 (1925), quoting from Cutter v. Cooper, 234 Mass. 307, 317-318, 125 N.E. 634 (1920).9 John also argues that the combination of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Adam J. Kolber, the Experiential Future of the Law
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 60-3, 2011
    • Invalid date
    ...from conversations with Jennifer Mnookin. 94 Owens v. Commonwealth, 136 S.E. 765, 766-67 (Va. 1927); see also Commonwealth v. Lyseth, 146 N.E. 18, 18 (Mass. 1925) (making it a crime merely to drive "under the influence of intoxicating liquor"). 95 See, e.g., MASS. ANN. LAWS ch. 90, Sec. 24(......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT