Massachusetts man facing charges after breathalyzer test from trooper involved in OT scandal loses court ruling

A local man facing drunk driving charges for the third time after he took a scrutinized breath test from a trooper involved in the statie OT scandal has lost a court ruling.

A Massachusetts appeals court has ruled in favor of the state prosecutors in the case involving Charles Crump, whose BAC was reportedly 0.14 when he blew into the Alcotest 9510 breathalyzer device.

Crump was charged with OUI, fourth offense, and five other criminal offenses — and he ended up pleading guilty to OUI, third offense, and to the remaining five charges.

But then nearly a decade later in 2022, Crump moved to toss his plea from the Western Massachusetts case. He argued that he may not have agreed to the guilty plea if he knew about the “government misconduct concerning the breathalyzer.”

There have been lawsuits involving the breathalyzer, and there was a statewide suspension of the breath tests amid concerns about software problems impacting the scientific reliability of the test.

Crump also noted that the trooper, Robert Church, had been implicated in the Mass State Police fraudulent overtime scandal. Church, who took home more than $237,000 in 2016 at the peak of his time with MSP, was disciplined in connection with the well-publicized scandal involving fraudulent OT claims by a number of troopers.

In addition, Crump brought up a decision in an unrelated case in which a judge found that Church had “engaged in coercive conduct” during an OUI arrest. As a result, the judge in that case granted the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence involving field sobriety tests.

When Crump in 2022 moved to vacate his guilty plea, the judge held a non-evidentiary hearing. Crump argued that with the breath test excluded, the Commonwealth’s remaining evidence would have consisted of the trooper’s testimony.

“The judge stated that he shared a Federal judge’s concern that the overtime fraud could have started as much as ten years earlier, which would have been before the plea in this case,” the appeals court wrote.

As a result, a district judge vacated the guilty plea in 2023, and then the Commonwealth appealed the ruling.

That brings us to Thursday’s ruling from the Massachusetts appeals court, which tossed the order allowing the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.

“In this case we examine important factors the Supreme Judicial Court and this court have considered in appeals from orders granting or denying a defendant’s motion for new trial based on egregious government misconduct involving the calibration of Alcotest 9510 breathalyzer devices,” the appeals court wrote.

“After a non-evidentiary hearing and without making findings of fact, the motion judge, who also was the plea judge, allowed the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea entered on the charge of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), third offense, as well as other offenses arising out of the same incident,” the court added. “The Commonwealth appeals, arguing that the judge abused his discretion by allowing the motion without first holding an evidentiary hearing. On this record, we agree.”

The case will now head back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing.

The incident in question happened back on April 9, 2013 at around 2 a.m., when the trooper found Crump at the scene of a one-car collision on Route 391 in Chicopee. The vehicle had extensive front-end damage and appeared to be totaled.

“Church observed that the defendant had a hard time forming a complete sentence without slurring his words and had obvious balance issues,” the ruling reads. “The defendant swayed from front to back and, while handcuffed but not yet Mirandized, admitted to consuming two to three forty-ounce beers to celebrate his birthday.”

A record check with the RMV revealed that his driver’s license had been revoked and that the vehicle’s license plates were stolen. Crump was then placed in custody for operating without a valid license and OUI.

The Alcotest 9510 breathalyzer test result revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.14.

After the plea deal, he was sentenced to two years on the charge of OUI, third offense, and to lesser concurrent terms on two of the other charges — to be served concurrently with committed sentences imposed two weeks earlier in an unrelated case.

But then in 2022, he brought the motion to toss the guilty plea, noting the breath test.

“… Had he known the breathalyzer test result could be challenged, he would not have accepted ‘this plea’ and instead would have gone to trial,” the ruling reads.

State prosecutors in response argued that the plea counsel’s assertion about the breath test did not satisfy the legal standard for withdrawing a guilty plea.

Ultimately, the appeals court ruled in favor of the prosecutors, and bounced the case back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing.

“Generally, ‘where a substantial issue is raised and is supported by a substantial evidentiary showing, the judge should hold an evidentiary hearing,’ ” the appeals court wrote. ” ‘Holding an evidentiary hearing provides the Commonwealth the opportunity to challenge the evidence presented in the affidavits,’ and it ‘enables the judge to make the findings of fact required to decide the motion.’ “