Opinion
13-P-1496
01-14-2015
COMMONWEALTH v. MICHAEL GALLANT.
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
The defendant, Michael Gallant, appeals from convictions by a jury of negligent operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor causing serious bodily injury, G. L. c. 90, § 24L(1), and negligent operation of a motor vehicle in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a). The defendant argues that the judge erred in denying his motion for required findings of not guilty because there was insufficient evidence that the defendant drove negligently or that his conduct proximately caused the victim's injuries. A review of the trial record reveals that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See the recitation of the evidence in the Commonwealth brief at pages 17 through 22.
The defendant also argues that the judge should have dismissed the charges because the Commonwealth violated the "no fix" statute. G. L. c. 90C, § 2. Here, as the motion judge observed, the incident required further investigation and was so serious that the defendant was deemed to be on notice. Commonwealth v. Kenney, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 514, 519 (2002). The motion was properly denied.
Judgments affirmed.
By the Court (Cypher, Fecteau & Massing, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
Clerk Entered: January 14, 2015.