· Procedural History
· Issue
How should the word
“convicted” be defined in G.L. c. 90, § 24(1) (f) (1)?
· Facts
In 1997, the plaintiff
was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of
intoxicating liquor (OUI). He admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of
guilty and he did not plead guilty. His case was continued without a finding
and later dismissed after he had successfully completed the terms of his
probation, including assignment to an alcohol education program.
The plaintiff was
arrested again for OUI on January 14, 2010. He refused to submit to a
breathalyzer test. Thereafter, the registrar of motor vehicles suspended the
plaintiff’s driver’s license for 3 years on account of his refusal to take the
test.
· Holding
The Supreme Judicial
Court, Botsford, J., held that driver whose prior operating under the influence
(OUI) case was continued without a finding and later dismissed after he
successfully completed the terms of his probation was not convicted under
statute that required three-year license suspension for subsequent OUI.
· Reasoning:
In order to determine
who has been “previously convicted of a violation,” we must first look to G. L.
c. 90, § 24(1) (f) (1), which defines the term
“convicted” for purposes of all the subsections of § 24(1). The pertinent part
of § 24(1)(d) reads:
“…a
person shall be deemed to have been convicted if he pleaded guilty or nolo
contendere or was found or adjudged guilty by a court of competent
jurisdiction, whether or not he was placed on probation without sentence or
under a suspended sentence or the case was placed on file…”
A
fundamental tenant of statutory interpretation is that statutory language
should be given effect consistent with its plain meaning and in light of the
aim of the Legislature unless to do so would achieve an illogical result. By its terms, the definition of “convicted” in
§ 24(1)(d) confines itself to a guilty plea, a plea of nolo contendere, a
finding of guilty, or a judgment of guilty. The definition makes no mention of
an admission to sufficient facts; an assignment to an alcohol education,
treatment, or rehabilitation program (program assignment); or a continuance
without a finding (CWOF). Evaluated in connection with the plain words of the
statutory definition, the plaintiff’s 1997 disposition, namely, the admission
to sufficient facts followed by a CWOF and a program assignment, does not qualify
him as someone who has been previously “convicted of” OUI.
· Disposition: Reversed (EH)
