Opinion
No. 12–P–705.
2013-02-26
COMMONWEALTH v. Lynn MATTHEWS.
By the Court (GRAHAM, GRAINGER & SIKORA, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
For substantially the reasons set forth in the Commonwealth's brief, we find no merit in the defendant's claim on appeal that the trial judge erred in denying her motion for a required finding of not guilty on the charge of failing to stop at the scene of property damage, G.L. c. 90, § 24(2)( a ).
Although it is embraced within the defendant's generally-worded notice of appeal, the defendant advances no argument concerning her conviction of operating a motor vehicle during a license suspension. We therefore affirm that conviction without further discussion.
Under the statute, and pertinent to this case, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant operated a motor vehicle; on a public way; and collided with another vehicle; the defendant knew that she had collided with another vehicle; and after such collision, the defendant did not stop and make known her name, address, and the registration number of her motor vehicle. Commonwealth v. Velasquez, 76 Mass.App.Ct. 697, 698–699 (2010). The element of the crime which the defendant challenges is the fifth element, namely, that the defendant did not stop and make known her pertinent information. She contends, essentially, that she had not left the area of the accident and intended, at some point, to provide the relevant information as required by law. Viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676–677 (1979), the defendant was involved in a collision with another motor vehicle, causing damage to that vehicle, then exited her vehicle and was proceeding to walk away from the scene when she was essentially surrounded by three or four pedestrians. Indeed, even after the police arrived at the scene, she was not initially forthcoming in providing them with the required information. Thus, because the defendant failed to “tender[ ] [the information] on the spot and immediately,” Commonwealth v. Horsfall, 213 Mass. 232, 236 (1913), we find no error in the judge's denial of the motion for a required finding. See Commonwealth v. Porro, 74 Mass.App.Ct. 676, 680 (2009) (as soon as motorist knew he collided with other motorist he was obligated to stop and provide required information).
Judgments affirmed.