Commonwealth v. Alston

Full title: COMMONWEALTH v. GARY R. ALSTON.

Court: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT

Date published: Apr 5, 2012

10-P-2041 (Mass. Apr. 5, 2012)

Opinion

10-P-2041

04-05-2012

COMMONWEALTH v. GARY R. ALSTON.

Kantrowitz

NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 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 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.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of operating with a suspended license, such license having been suspended for operating under the influence of liquor, G. L. c. 90, § 23. The defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to a charge of operating under the influence of liquor, fifth offense, G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1).

The defendant argues on appeal that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of operating with a suspended license, and (2) the trial judge acted in violation of due process when he denied the jury's request for the judge to read back to them the testimony of the arresting officer. With regard to the first argument, for substantially the reasons stated on pages 6 and 7 of the Commonwealth's brief we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to have found the essential elements of the offense under G. L. c. 90, § 23, beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Ruci, 409 Mass. 94, 96 (1991), citing Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979). With regard to the defendant's second argument, we conclude that the judge acted within his discretion and the requirements of due process when he denied the jury's request to have certain portions of trial testimony read back to them. See Commonwealth v. Stockwell, 426 Mass. 17, 24 (1997); Commonwealth v. Bacigalupo, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 629, 632, 635-636 (2000); Commonwealth v. Richotte, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 524, 530 (2003). To the extent that we have not addressed specific points made by the plaintiffs, they have not been overlooked. We have considered them and have found them to be without merit.

Judgments affirmed.

By the Court (Kantrowitz, Trainor & Hanlon, JJ.),