Massachusetts high court grapples with use of blood tests in impaired driving cases

(CN) — The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is being asked in a pair of cases to determine if police need consent to use blood test evidence at trial for charges of operating under the influence, or OUI.

The two cases involve car crashes where the drivers face criminal counts related to driving a vehicle while impaired. In both cases, police sought access to blood samples that were taken during the drivers’ hospital treatment after the accidents.

However, lower courts issued differing opinions on whether such evidence could be used at trial.

Part of the legal confusion is whether a law that requires consent for police blood testing is applicable in both simple and aggravated OUI cases.

Under the state’s law, a simple OUI offense occurs when a driver operates a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or above. Aggravated OUI encompasses cases where the driver has a blood alcohol level of 0.20%.

In addition, an aggravated OUI charge can result if the driver has a young child in the vehicle at the time of arrest, caused property damage or bodily injury, or has a history of OUI offenses.

Both cases were appealed to the state’s high court, which held oral arguments in the cases back to back on Monday.

The first case heard involves a driver named Bradley Zucchino, who is facing criminal counts of manslaughter, OUI, assault and battery, and leaving the scene of a January 2020 car accident that killed the driver of the other vehicle.

Zucchino’s motion to suppress blood test evidence was denied by a lower court, a decision that his attorney, Murat Erkan, asked the state’s high court to reverse.

“The Legislature has, over decades, strongly and consistently indicated its intent not to force blood alcohol testing in prosecution of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol (‘OUI’) cases,” Erkan wrote in his court-submitted brief.

Erkan argued that the Legislature’s intent with the consent law should be interpreted as applying to all OUI cases, regardless of whether someone was injured.

Representing the Commonwealth, Assistant District Attorney Marina Moriarty said that the law should be read that consent for blood test evidence only applies to “simple OUI” prosecutions.

“The court need not look beyond the plain language of the statute where it is unambiguous,” said Moriarty. “There is no legislative history evincing an intent to the contrary and it is consistent with the legislature’s thoughtful balancing of competing interests.”

In the second case, Assistant District Attorney Melissa Johnsen argued that in a case involving a driver named John Cappellucci, blood evidence was wrongly suppressed.

“This is a situation where the Legislature, within its purview, decided to balance the rights of the driver defendant against the rights of the public, and the public’s interest in public safety,” Johnsen said.

Cappellucci was charged with both alcohol- and drug-related OUI offenses, which Johnsen argues means his consent was not required for the blood test to be admissible.

Both cases concern blood draw samples that were taken by hospitals and later obtained by police, which makes them distinctly different from blood drawn directly by or on the order of police.

“If we rule in your favor, does it allow police officers to take the blood without consent, absent the medical treatments?” asked Justice Frank Gaziano.

Johnsen responded that a specific provision in the law would prevent that.

Attorney Mark Helwig represented Cappellucci and argued that even in aggravated OUI cases, where there are victims, simple OUI is still included as a lesser offense by the prosecution, and thus protection from the use of blood test evidence is still in place.

No timetable was given for the court’s decision.