Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog

When a motorist is charged with a Massachusetts Second Offense OUI, the Commonwealth has to prove the defendant previously was convicted of OUI in Massachusetts or in some other State with an equivalent State statute. If a motorist is charged with a third or fourth offense, the process is the same with the Commonwealth required to prove the additional convictions.

A case from the Indiana Supreme Court may assist Massachusetts OUI lawyers in excluding prior convictions made when the motorist admitted to the charge pro se, or without a lawyer. In the case of Hopper v. Indiana, decided, September 28, 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court held that it would require judges at a plea hearing to advise a defendant of the dangers of going to trial without a lawyer, that an attorney is usually more experienced in plea negotiations and better able to identify and evaluate any potential defenses and evidentiary or procedural problems in the prosecution's case.

The Indiana Supreme Court imposed this new rule not pursuant to the federal or its State Constitution but under its supervisory powers over the Court. In Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004), the United States Supreme Court rejected the argument that the Sixth Amendment requires an enhanced warning against the dangers of self-representation.

The Indiana Supreme Court in Hopper emphasized that the additional advisement would not consume significant court time and participation of counsel is likely to further plea bargain as well as delays in litigating cases.

As a lawyer defending Second Offense Massachusetts DUI charges, this decision represents a way to challenge a prior conviction at trial. The decision may prove even more helpful in cases of Third and Fourth Offenses to assist a defendant in avoiding mandatory jail time.