Commonwealth v. Grady
Annotate this CaseAfter a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor (OUI), possession with intent to distribute a class B substance, and possession with intent to distribute a class B substance in a school zone. The Appeals Court affirmed. On appeal, the Commonwealth conceded that certain testimony was improperly admitted. Defendant, however, did not object to or move to strike the testimony. Defendant appealed, arguing that improperly admitted testimony violated his confrontation rights. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, Defendant did not properly preserve his appellate rights; and (2) the error did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.