Commonwealth v. Charles Crump, Jr.: The Impact of Faulty Breathalyzer Evidence on OUI Convictions
The Massachusetts Appeals Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Charles Crump, Jr. (Docket No. 23-P-1425) highlights the evolving legal landscape surrounding breathalyzer evidence in OUI (Operating Under the Influence) cases. This case is particularly significant because it underscores the fallout from the faulty calibration of Alcotest 9510 breathalyzer devices, a scandal that has led to numerous OUI convictions being reconsidered across the Commonwealth.
The key legal question in this appeal was whether the motion judge abused his discretion by allowing the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Appeals Court ruled that the judge erred in granting the motion without such a hearing, vacated the order allowing Crump’s plea withdrawal, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
This blog post will explore:
The background of the case and Crump’s conviction
The breathalyzer controversy and its impact on OUI cases
The Appeals Court’s reasoning and its emphasis on evidentiary hearings
Implications for OUI defense and the criminal justice system in Massachusetts
1. Case Background: A Decade-Old OUI Conviction Comes Under Scrutiny
The case originates from an April 9, 2013, incident in which Charles Crump, Jr. was arrested and charged with OUI (third offense), along with several other motor vehicle offenses.
The Traffic Stop and Arrest
At approximately 2:00 AM, State Trooper Robert Church found Crump at the scene of a single-vehicle accident on Route 391 in Chicopee.
The car was totaled, its front-end severely damaged, and Crump was still inside when police arrived.
Crump exited the vehicle, stumbled toward the trooper, and slurred his words.
He admitted to consuming two or three 40-ounce beers to celebrate his birthday.
A breathalyzer test at the Springfield State Police barracks showed a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.14%, nearly twice the legal limit.
The Guilty Plea and Sentencing
In May 2013, Crump pleaded guilty to OUI (third offense) and several other charges.
He was sentenced to two years in a house of correction, with a mandatory minimum of 150 days before parole eligibility.
His sentence ran concurrently with another OUI conviction imposed two weeks earlier.
2. The Breathalyzer Scandal and Its Legal Fallout
Nearly a decade later, Crump moved to withdraw his guilty plea based on egregious government misconduct related to the Alcotest 9510 breathalyzer device used in his case.
The Alcotest 9510 Controversy
The Alcotest 9510 breathalyzer devices, used by Massachusetts police departments for years, were found to have serious calibration errors that led to unreliable BAC results.
In Commonwealth v. Hallinan (2023), the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled that OUI defendants whose cases involved these devices were entitled to a conclusive presumption of egregious government misconduct and could seek to have their convictions overturned.
Crump’s breathalyzer test was administered prior to April 18, 2019, making his conviction subject to this ruling. He argued that, had he known the test results were unreliable, he would have never pleaded guilty and would have taken his case to trial.
3. The Appeals Court’s Analysis: Was a Hearing Required?
Crump’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was granted by a motion judge who had also been the plea judge in 2013. However, the Commonwealth appealed, arguing that the judge should have held an evidentiary hearing before granting the motion.
A. The Legal Standard for Withdrawing a Guilty Plea
Massachusetts law treats a motion to withdraw a guilty plea as a motion for a new trial under Rule 30(b), which allows courts to grant a new trial if justice was not done.
To succeed in withdrawing a guilty plea based on government misconduct, a defendant must show:
That egregious misconduct occurred (already established in Hallinan).
That the misconduct influenced the decision to plead guilty—i.e., that the defendant would have reasonably rejected the plea deal and gone to trial had he known about the misconduct.
B. The Motion Judge’s Error: No Evidentiary Hearing
The motion judge allowed Crump’s motion without holding an evidentiary hearing or making factual findings.
The Appeals Court ruled this was an abuse of discretion, stating that such motions typically require a hearing unless the record overwhelmingly supports withdrawal of the plea.
Without a hearing, there was no way to assess the credibility of Crump’s claim that he would have gone to trial without the breath test evidence.
C. Evaluating the Strength of the Commonwealth’s Case Without the Breathalyzer
Even without the breath test, the prosecution still had strong circumstantial evidence of intoxication:
✅ Crump admitted to drinking three 40-ounce beers.
✅ He was found at the scene of a severe crash, swaying, stumbling, and slurring his speech.
✅ He told police he knew he had “drank too much” and had no intention of driving.
✅ The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol in the cruiser.
The motion judge failed to consider whether this remaining evidence would have influenced Crump’s decision to plead guilty.
D. The Burden on the Defendant
The court noted that Crump needed to provide a strong, specific argument that he would have chosen to go to trial, rather than simply stating he might have done so.
In Hallinan, the defendant’s lawyer provided an unequivocal affidavit stating he would have advised against pleading guilty had he known the breathalyzer results were unreliable.
In contrast, Crump’s lawyer only stated that the breath test’s exclusion “may have affected” his advice, which the Appeals Court found too vague.
For these reasons, the Appeals Court ruled that an evidentiary hearing was necessary before allowing Crump to withdraw his plea.
4. Implications for OUI Defense and Criminal Law in Massachusetts
A. The Lasting Impact of the Alcotest 9510 Scandal
The Alcotest 9510 controversy stems from revelations that Massachusetts state officials failed to properly calibrate and maintain thousands of breathalyzer devices, leading to unreliable and potentially inaccurate BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) results in OUI (Operating Under the Influence) prosecutions. Between 2011 and 2019, the Massachusetts Office of Alcohol Testing (OAT) withheld critical evidence showing that the Alcotest 9510 devices were improperly certified, causing systemic errors in breath test results. In 2017, a Massachusetts court ruled that breath test results from these devices were unreliable, leading to the exclusion of tens of thousands of breath test results statewide and the potential reversal of thousands of OUI convictions. In Commonwealth v. Hallinan (2023), the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) established a conclusive presumption of egregious government misconduct in cases involving these breathalyzer tests, giving defendants the right to challenge their convictions if their plea or trial relied on these flawed test results.
The faulty breathalyzer scandal has created major legal challenges for OUI cases in Massachusetts.
Defendants convicted based on breathalyzer results prior to April 2019 now have a path to challenge their convictions.
Courts are still determining how to handle these cases, balancing due process rights with the reliability of other evidence.
B. The Importance of Evidentiary Hearings in Plea Withdrawal Cases
This case reinforces that courts should not allow guilty pleas to be withdrawn without first holding a hearing.
A defendant’s claim that they “might” have gone to trial is not enough—they must demonstrate a reasonable probability they would have rejected the plea.
Judges must weigh the strength of the remaining evidence before deciding if a plea withdrawal is justified.
C. The Future of OUI Litigation in Massachusetts
Defense attorneys must carefully assess whether their clients’ cases are affected by the breathalyzer scandal and prepare strong factual arguments if seeking to withdraw a guilty plea.
Prosecutors will argue that convictions should stand if independent evidence (e.g., erratic driving, field sobriety tests, admissions) supports impairment.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale in Post-Conviction OUI Challenges
The Commonwealth v. Charles Crump, Jr. decision illustrates the challenges in re-evaluating OUI convictions tainted by faulty breathalyzer evidence.
While the breath test result should never have been used against Crump, the Appeals Court correctly ruled that before vacating his conviction, a judge must determine whether Crump truly would have gone to trial—rather than just claiming so in hindsight.
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of due process, the evolving landscape of OUI defense, and the careful scrutiny required when overturning a decade-old conviction.