Commonwealth v. Lavendier

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor, third offense (G. L. c. 90, § 24[l][a][l]). On appeal, he primarily argues that a District Court judge erred by denying his motion to suppress certain incriminating statements that he made to the police *502prior to his arrest. He also argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. We affirm.1

1. Motion to suppress. Through the statements at issue, the defendant effectively acknowledged that he was intoxicated and that he had driven the truck found at the…