Commonwealth v. USKI

• Decision Date: 05 March 1928
• Citation: 160 N.E. 305,263 Mass. 22
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. USKI (two cases).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

263 Mass. 22

160 N.E. 305

COMMONWEALTH

v.USKI (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

March 5, 1928.

Exceptions from Superior Criminal Court, Worcester County; Butterworth, Judge.

William Uski was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle on a way in the city of Fitchburg while intoxicated, having been previously convicted of a similar offense, and of operating a motor vehicle after his right to operate it had been suspended within the commonwealth, and he brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

1. Municipal corporations k707-Instruction that one manipulating machinery to put automobile in motion is operating it, regardless of whether automobile moves, held not error in prosecution for drunken driving; ‘operation of motor vehicle’ (G. L. c. 90, s 24).

In prosecution for operating motor vehicle while intoxicated, instruction that defendant was operating car if he manipulated machinery for purpose of putting automobile in motion, regardless of whether it moved, held not error, since ‘operation of motor vehicle,’ within G. L. c. 90, s 24, is intentional act of person in vehicle which alone or in sequence will set in motion motive power of such vehicle.

2. Criminal law k390-Evidence showing intention of defendant in getting into automobile held inadmissible in prosecution for drunken driving.

In prosecution for operating motor vehicle while intoxicated, exclusion of question as to what defendant intended to do when getting into front seat of car, and offered proof that witness would answer he intended to turn lights on and await arrival of another, held not error; question for jury being what defendant did, and not what he intended to do.

3. Criminal law k1170(2)-Excluding evidence of defendant's intent in getting into car, in prosecution for drunken driving, if error, held harmless, in view of other testimony.

In prosecution for operating motor vehicle while intoxicated, exclusion of evidence tending to show defendant's intention in getting into automobile, if error, held harmless, in view of testimony on cross-examination that he got into car and turned lights on and waited for another.

H. W. Brown, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Whitinsville, and E. G. Norman, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Worcester, for the Commonwealth.

J. A. Anderson, of Boston, for defendant.

PIERCE, J.

These are two complaints; one charging that the defendant did operate a motor vehicle upon a way in the city of Fitchburg while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, he having been previously convicted of a similar offence in 1925; the other charging that the defendant, on June 30, 1927, did operate a motor vehicle upon a way in the city of Fitchburg after his right to operate motor vehicles in this commonwealth had been suspended by the registrar of motor vehicles. The defendant pleaded not guilty to these complaints. At the trial it was admitted that the defendant had been convicted in the district court of Fitchburg, in 1925, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor; that his license to operate motor vehicles in this commonwealth had been suspended by the registrar of motor vehicles as a result of that conviction; and that said suspension was still in force.

A police officer testified in substance that, acting upon information that the defendant was operating his automobile without a license and while under the influence of liquor, at a little after 10 p. m. on June 30, 1927, he watched a touring car with a New Hampshire registration standing at the curb on Main street in Fitchburg, headed west, without lights but under...