State's Highest Court Upholds Stoughton OUI Charge

STOUGHTON, MA — The state's highest court has upheld a 2012 conviction against a drive who was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol in Stoughton.

Friday, the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the lack of a proper breathalyzer test and the argument that statements from a translator were hearsay are not grounds for the reversal of a conviction against Glenis A. Adonsoto.

On July 12, 2012 at about 2:30 a.m., a Stoughton resident reported to police a vehicle that was straddling the solid double-yellow line. A tractor-trailer truck driving in the opposite direction blew his horn as a warning signal to the driver, later identified as Adonstoto. Police were able to locate the vehicle and during a traffic stop, the officer smelled the odor of alcohol through the vehicle's open window and noticed that the defendant's eyes were glassy, according to court documents.

Adonstoto, who responded to police in Spanish, was slurring her words and was unsteady on her feet. After the office was unable to conduct a field sobriety test due to communication issues, Adonstoto was taken into custody.

At the station, a translator was called to read Adonstoto's Miranda rights, with the defendant saying in Spanish that she understood. Adonstoto told police that she was driving home from a friend's house in a borrowed car. Through the translator, she was asked by police if she would take a breathalyzer test, which she agreeed too. Police were unable to register a result because Adonstoto was unable to properly take the test, despite receiving instructions and a demonstration.

During court arguments in February, an attorney for Adonstoto said the incomplete test should not have been admitted as evidence because "any probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." The court, however, said that Adonstoto gave consent for the test, therefore it is not inadmissable.

The court also rejected the argument that statements from the translator should be considered hearsay because the interpreter was acting as an agent of the defendant, court documents said.

Here's the full ruling via LexisNexis:

Image via Shutterstock