Commonwealth vs. Ferdinand J. Velasquez, April 29, 2010
76 Mass. App. Ct. 697
Leaving the Scene of an Accident
The defendant was tried and convicted of leaving the scene of an accident after causing property damage. The defendant appealed the judge’s decision denying the defendant’s motion for required finding of not guilty. The Appeals Court reversed the defendant’s conviction.
The defendant was found by a passing motorist after having apparently crashed into a telephone pole on a sidewalk. The motorist told the defendant that he should stay at the scene and wait for an ambulance, but the defendant insisted on going home so the motorist drove him there. Police and emergency services arrived at the accident scene and by determining based on the license plate whose vehicle it was, went to the defendant’s apartment and arrested him for leaving the scene of an accident causing property damage. The Commonwealth acknowledged that no visible, or actual damage was done to either the sidewalk or the telephone pole.
At trial the prosecution convinced the judge that there need not be any actual damage to property for this offense to have occurred. The appeals court discusses this argument at length using the language of the statute, its purpose, and its interpretation in case law. In the end the appeals court, “reaches the unremarkable conclusion that, to support a conviction for leaving the scene of an accident causing property damage, the Commonwealth must prove that the accident caused property damage.”
76 Mass. App. Ct. 697
Leaving the Scene of an Accident
The defendant was tried and convicted of leaving the scene of an accident after causing property damage. The defendant appealed the judge’s decision denying the defendant’s motion for required finding of not guilty. The Appeals Court reversed the defendant’s conviction.
The defendant was found by a passing motorist after having apparently crashed into a telephone pole on a sidewalk. The motorist told the defendant that he should stay at the scene and wait for an ambulance, but the defendant insisted on going home so the motorist drove him there. Police and emergency services arrived at the accident scene and by determining based on the license plate whose vehicle it was, went to the defendant’s apartment and arrested him for leaving the scene of an accident causing property damage. The Commonwealth acknowledged that no visible, or actual damage was done to either the sidewalk or the telephone pole.
At trial the prosecution convinced the judge that there need not be any actual damage to property for this offense to have occurred. The appeals court discusses this argument at length using the language of the statute, its purpose, and its interpretation in case law. In the end the appeals court, “reaches the unremarkable conclusion that, to support a conviction for leaving the scene of an accident causing property damage, the Commonwealth must prove that the accident caused property damage.”
