Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Involuntary Manslaughter Conviction Homicide Drunk Driving Lawyers Attorneys

© TY STOCKMAN. BOARD OF APPEAL ON MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY POLICIES AND BONDS & Another.

APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

September 30, 2004

Facts:

The plaintiff, Ty Stockman, WAS Convicted in 1990 of Operating a Motor Vehicle while intoxicated. Subsequently prosecuted for He Was An Accident That Occurred in February, 1992, Wherein one Shannon Parker WAS Killed. I'm his prosecution, The jury verdicts of guilty of Returned involuntary manslaughter and homicide of year véhicule That offense includes element as a year of driving while intoxicated Finding. The trial Judge Dismissed The burden of Motor Vehicle Homicide have duplicate for double jeopardy Purposes, and Stockman Sentenced On The manslaughter conviction. Noting That has Consequences of the Jones procedure WAS to leave standing only a belief (ie, manslaughter) That is icts faced Did Not Suggest The Death WAS Caused by Stockman's drunk driving, The Judge, cognizant That drunk driving convictions Are The predicate for license revocations Under GL c. 90, § 24 (1) © (4). Upon Receiving the short abstract, The Registrar of Motor Vehicles Suspended Stockman's license for Ten Years pursuant to "§ © 24G. When The registrar Later Discovered Stockman's prior conviction of driving while intoxicated in 1990, The registrar shall conduct free acting in historical understanding of GL c. 90, § 24 (1) © (4), Revoked for life Stockman's License to Operate. We appeal, the defendants Board of Appeals is véhicule automobile liability Policies and Bonds (board) upheld The suspension, as did "The Judge Who The board's decision reviewed Under GL c. 30A, § 14. Plaintiff Sought licensee review of a decision of The Hampshire Superior Court Department Massachusetts.

Issue:

Whether The registrar Properly Treated involuntary manslaughter conviction The conviction was ace of motor vehicle homicide?

Conclusion:

The Court Finds That WHERE a conviction of Motor Vehicle Homicide IS Dismissed for The Reason thats the jury the defendants aussi Convicted of manslaughter, pour la même conduite, The registrar Properly treats The manslaughter conviction as a conviction of motor vehicle homicide and driving while of Malthus intoxicated, for Purpose of Applying the ten-year and lifetime revocation provisions of § 24 (1) © (4) and § 24G ©. For Another instance of a license revocation WHERE IS Mandated upon a belief Under § 24, despite The Fact That Was Not Imposed award entitled to. It Would make little sense, as The Judge Who reviewed The board's decision Observed, for "Fine Option IS found guilty of negligent homicide Under a theory of Operating Under The Influence to Benefit From The Additional, Albeit more serious... Conviction of involuntary manslaughter. Section 24 (1) © (4) Did Not require DWI Two Separate Accidents Involving Two Deaths. Rather, WAS The licensee subject to lifetime revocation of license history is based DWI conviction The Original And The Subsequent DWI Accident Resulting in a death. Further, based On The Facts Of The Case, The registrar Properly Treated involuntary manslaughter conviction as The conviction of a motor vehicle homicide.

Disclaimer:

Thesis summaries are Provided By The SRIS Law Group. Theys Represent The Firm's unofficial Views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinion Should Be Their consulted for authoritative content