Commonwealth v. Belliveau

I concur fully in the specific rationale of the affirmance: that the evidence and the judge’s proper instructions permitted the jury to find that the defendant had *837driven under the influence of alcohol on the public roads leading to the pier. Ante at 835. That analysis freed us from the need to resolve the “close question” whether the pier constituted “any way or . . . any place to which the public has a right of access, or . . . any way or . . . any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees . . . .” G. L. c. 90, § 24(l)(a)(l), as amended through St. 2003, c.…