COMMONWEALTH v. AUBURN PERRY (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

After a jury trial in the District Court, the defendant, Auburn J. Perry, was convicted of negligent operation of a motor vehicle, in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24 (2) (a). On appeal, the defendant claims there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

Sufficiency of the evidence. When reviewing the denial of a motion for a required finding of not guilty, we “consider the evidence introduced at trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt” (citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Lagotic, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 405, 407 (2023). Our analysis is not whether we “believe[ ] that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”; rather, it is whether “any rational trier of fact could have” (citations omitted). Commonwealth v. Rocheteau, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 17, 19 (2009). “The inferences that support a conviction need only be reasonable and possible; [they] need not be necessary or inescapable” (quotation and citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Howe, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 354, 357 (2023).

“To sustain a conviction of negligent operation, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant (1) operated a motor vehicle, (2) on a public way, and (3) [did so] negligently, so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered” (citation omitted). Howe, 103 Mass. App. Ct. at 357. Only the third element is at issue in this appeal. To establish negligence, the Commonwealth need only show that “the defendant's conduct might have endangered the safety of the public, not that it, in fact, did” (citation omitted). Id. at 358. “Negligence in this context is determined by the same standard that is employed in tort law” (citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Teixeira, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 367, 369 (2019).

Here, based on the traffic surveillance video exhibit, the defendant's admissions, and the officers’ observations, a rational finder of fact could have found that the defendant drove his van on heavily trafficked multilane roadways in Norwood without its front right wheel. Given the considerable damage to the front right wheel well, passenger's side door, and front bumper, as well as the fact that the defendant was actively bleeding from a cut on his cheek at the time officers spoke with him, a rational trier of fact could have inferred that the defendant had gotten into an accident in which the van had lost the wheel.

The traffic surveillance video admitted at trial further supported inferences that the defendant's operation of the three-wheeled van was negligent. First, there was evidence from which an inference could be drawn that the defendant was having difficulty controlling the vehicle. The van visibly listed to the right the entire time it moved. In fact, photographs of the parking lot showed that the van rested on the front right axle which had also left drag marks on the pavement. Additionally, as the van entered the intersection, it straddled two lanes of traffic before making a right-hand turn. Further, there was evidence of precautions the defendant did not take. Although the defendant told officers that he was aware that something was wrong with the van as he was driving, at no point did he activate the van's hazard lights. The defendant also drove past a pull-off and a shoulder on the roadway where he could have safely stopped the vehicle outside the flow of traffic but opted to continue driving instead.

Moreover, a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the defendant operated the van without the front right wheel for a not-insignificant distance. When the police spoke with the defendant, he said that he believed he had hit a pothole a short distance from where he eventually parked the van. Upon searching that area, however, they found no evidence of a pothole, the defendant's wheel, or other evidence of a motor vehicle accident. An investigating officer additionally testified there was no evidence the van had been in an accident in Norwood. Although negligent operation is not dependent on duration or distance, a rational trier of fact could reasonably consider the overall distance that the defendant operated the van without the front right wheel as evidence that his conduct might have endangered the safety of the public. See Commonwealth v. Ferreira, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 32, 35 (2007).

Finally, a rational trier of fact could rely on the evidence that the defendant was intoxicated while driving. Two officers who interacted with the defendant testified that he smelled of alcohol. One officer testified the defendant had bloodshot glassy eyes. Another officer found an empty alcohol container in the front seat of the van. The defendant admitted to the officers that he had consumed alcohol earlier that day. Although the defendant successfully completed three field sobriety tests, was able to walk around on his own, and did not slur his speech, the arresting officers nevertheless opined that the defendant was intoxicated. See Commonwealth v. Ross, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 377, 380-381 (2017).

Accordingly, “this was not a case where the Commonwealth relied on the mere happening of [an] accident to prove negligent operation” (quotation and citation omitted). Howe, 103 Mass. App. Ct. at 359. Rather, a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence recounted above that the defendant operated his vehicle in a way that might have endangered the public.

Judgment affirmed.