Commonwealth v. Parecklis Rocha. ( 2023 )

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
22-P-514
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
PARECKLIS ROCHA.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
After a jury-waived trial in the Boston Municipal Court,
the defendant was convicted of operating under the influence of
intoxicating liquor (OUI).1, 2 The defendant appeals from his
conviction for OUI. Because we conclude that the evidence was
sufficient to prove the elements of OUI beyond a reasonable
doubt, we affirm.
Background. "When reviewing the denial of a motion for a
required finding of not guilty, 'we consider the evidence
introduced at trial in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth and determine whether a rational trier of fact
1 The defendant was acquitted of the negligent operation of a
motor vehicle charge.
2 The defendant was also found responsible for failure to
stop/yield, G. L. c. 89, § 9; failure to stop for police, G. L.
c. 90, § 25; and possession of an open container of alcohol in a
motor vehicle, G. L. c. 90, § 24I.
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.'" Commonwealth v. Ross, 92 Mass. App. Ct.
377, 378 (2017), quoting Commonwealth v. Oberle, 476 Mass. 539,
547 (2017). Because the defendant challenges only the
sufficiency of the evidence of intoxication, we focus only on
that element. See G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1)(a)(1).
On July 19, 2019, at approximately 2:40 A.M., a
Massachusetts State Trooper, who was conducting a traffic stop
of another car, heard a screeching sound come from a vehicle on
the road in front of her. She then observed that vehicle take a
"wild turn" onto Albany Street in Boston. It appeared to the
trooper that the driver either had lost control of the car or
had taken the turn too fast because the trooper observed that
the driver had to turn the wheel aggressively to regain control
of the car. The car then stopped at a red light, but proceeded
to go through it before the light changed to green. It was the
only car on the road at the time.
The trooper and her partner rushed back into their cruiser,
pulled onto the road, and positioned themselves behind the
suspect vehicle. They activated their cruiser lights and
sirens, but the driver failed to stop. The trooper used her air
horn and multiple types of sirens in her attempt to stop the
car, but it did not stop. Instead, the vehicle turned into a
parking lot of a gas station and drove behind the station and a
2
hotel. Ultimately, the car returned to the gas station and
stopped.
As the trooper exited her cruiser, the driver abruptly
opened his door and "made body motions that looked like he was
gonna run." The trooper apprehended the driver, who was the
defendant, and handcuffed him. The defendant said that he was
going fast and did not think that the trooper was going to be
able to catch up to him. The trooper noticed that the defendant
smelled of alcohol, his speech was slurred, and his eyes were
bloodshot and glassy. The defendant stated that he had been at
a club, and the trooper believed that he said he had been
drinking, but she could not fully recall.
The defendant agreed to perform field sobriety assessments.
While attempting to complete the walk-and-turn test, the
defendant missed heel-to-toe steps, failed to keep his hands by
his side, failed to count out loud, did not walk in a straight
line, and improperly turned. While performing the one-legged
stand test, the defendant had to grab onto his pants pocket to
keep his balance, swayed left and right, failed to count the
numbers in order, missed a few numbers, and then placed his foot
back on the ground and ended the test himself. The trooper
placed him under arrest for OUI. An inventory search of the
defendant's car revealed a bottle of Hennessey liquor.
3
Discussion. The defendant argues that the Commonwealth's
evidence of intoxication was insufficient. The Commonwealth
provided ample evidence that allowed a rational trier of fact to
find that the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was
impaired by his consumption of alcohol. See Commonwealth v.
Dussault, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 542, 545 (2008) (evidence against
defendant "overwhelming" where officer observed erratic driving
and speeding and defendant's eyes were bloodshot, speech was
slurred, breath smelled of alcohol, gait was unsteady, and
liquor was found in the car). The trooper testified that she
observed the defendant seemingly lose control of his vehicle
while making a turn, go through a red light, and fail to stop
for her cruiser despite activation of her lights, sirens, and
air horn. In addition to the evidence of the defendant's
driving, the officers' observations of how the defendant looked,
smelled, and acted were sufficient for a rational trier of fact
4
to find that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol.
Id.Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Meade,
Hershfang & D'Angelo, JJ.3),
Clerk
Entered: October 20, 2023.
3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
5