In the Massachusetts DUI case of Commonwealth v. Babb, which the Massachusetts Appeals Court decided yesterday, the Court held that the prosecution was unable to prove that Babb has committed a prior DUI offense and he, therefore, was guilty only of DUI First Offense and not DUI 2nd offense.

The Appeals Court agreed with Babb’s OUI lawyer’s claim that the evidence was insufficient for the judge to find Babb guilty on the second offense portion of the DUI charge. The only link between the Babb and his alleged 1st Offense DUI conviction was his name. This was insufficient to support a guilty finding on the Second Offense portion of the DUI charge.

Under Massachusetts DUI law, G.L. c. 278, § 11A, those charged with operating under the influence in Massachusetts are legally entitled to a separate trial on the question of whether or not the Mass. DUI defendant has prior convictions. The law prevents the judge from considering or relying on any evidence that had been presented at the jury trial to establish identity. Instead, the prosecution must convince the judge beyond a reasonable doubt that the drunk driving defendant is the same person named in the prior DUI cases. Under Melanie’s law, live testimony is not required and this can be proven by court records. However, Melanie’s law did not lower the standard of proof and it still must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Identification of the defendant is, and always has been, a critical element in every criminal trial and the lack of identification can and has resulted in not guilty verdicts. Mere matching of a name, without more, does not sufficiently establish identification, such that a defendant can be convicted of DUI second or subsequent offense.