Boston’s Criminal
Defense Lawyer
Defense Lawyer
Operating to Endanger and Motor Vehicle Homicide in Massachusetts
Operating to endanger and motor vehicle homicide are not interchangeable Massachusetts charges. A conviction for ordinary negligent or reckless operation under G.L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a) depends on how the person drove and whether the operation might have endangered the public. Motor vehicle homicide under G.L. c. 90, § 24G requires proof that the operation caused a death, but Section 24G contains several distinct crimes with different elements and penalties.
By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center | Massachusetts Criminal Defense Since 1995
A fatal crash does not establish criminal negligence, recklessness, intoxication, or causation by itself. The Commonwealth must prove the particular theory charged beyond a reasonable doubt. In a serious collision case, the defense must identify the charged theory immediately and preserve the vehicles and electronic data. The defense must also examine the road and sight lines, test the medical and reconstruction evidence, and separate the tragedy of the result from the elements of the crime.
Serpa Law Office handles operating to endanger and motor vehicle homicide cases as part of its broader Massachusetts criminal motor-vehicle practice. The sections below explain the distinct charges, causation rules, sentencing provisions, license consequences, and defense issues.
The Charges Covered by Sections 24 and 24G
| Charge | Central prosecution theory | Result element |
|---|---|---|
| Negligent operation, G.L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a) | Operation without the care of a reasonably careful person, so the lives or safety of the public might be endangered | No crash, injury, or death is required |
| Reckless operation, G.L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a) | Operation substantially beyond negligence and dangerous enough that the public might be endangered | No crash, injury, or death is required |
| Felony OUI motor vehicle homicide, G.L. c. 90, § 24G(a) | A qualifying OUI or .08-or-greater theory together with negligent or reckless operation | The operation must cause a death |
| Misdemeanor motor vehicle homicide, G.L. c. 90, § 24G(b) | Either a qualifying OUI or .08-or-greater theory without separate negligence, or negligent operation without OUI | The operation must cause a death |
| Reckless homicide by motor vehicle, G.L. c. 90, § 24G(c) | Conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the public | The operation must cause a death |
The two misdemeanor offenses in Section 24G(b) are separate crimes, not different labels for the same offense. Commonwealth v. Williams, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 833, 838-41 (2009). Defense counsel who prepares only for alcohol evidence may miss a negligence theory. Defense counsel who prepares only for collision fault may miss the distinct OUI theory.
Massachusetts judges use separate model instructions for each Section 24G(a) combination of OUI evidence and negligent or reckless operation. The District Court’s model instructions also provide separate instructions for reckless homicide under Section 24G(c), negligent homicide under Section 24G(b), and the three OUI-based misdemeanor theories. A judge cannot combine the elements of the separate Section 24G theories into a single generic motor vehicle homicide instruction.
Negligent Operation Under Section 24(2)(a)
The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant operated a motor vehicle, did so on a public way or another place covered by the statute, and operated negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might have been endangered. Actual endangerment, a collision, and an injured person are not elements. Commonwealth v. Duffy, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 921, 923 (2004).
The test for negligence is whether the operation fell below the care a reasonably careful person would use in the circumstances. Speed can be evidence, but speed alone does not automatically establish negligent operation. The judge or jury considers traffic, road design, visibility, weather, vehicle condition, other road users, time of day, and the events immediately before the alleged danger.
A mistake in judgment is not necessarily criminal negligence. A mechanical failure, sudden medical event, obscured sign, unexpected movement by another road user, or reasonable reaction to an emergency can affect whether the judge or jury finds that the driver was negligent. The defense should compare the police conclusion with the physical evidence and with what a driver could have seen and done in the available time.
Reckless Operation Under Section 24(2)(a)
Reckless operation under Section 24(2)(a) requires more than ordinary negligence. Massachusetts judges instruct juries to decide whether the manner or speed of operation went substantially beyond a failure to use reasonable care and created a high degree of danger. An accident alone does not prove recklessness.
The question whether the operation was reckless depends on all of the circumstances of the driving. Relevant evidence can include extreme speed, deliberate racing, abrupt or dangerous lane movements, a prolonged course of dangerous operation, warnings ignored by the driver, road and traffic conditions, and the defendant’s ability to perceive the risk. The firm’s guide to negligent and reckless operation in Massachusetts separately addresses the difference between negligence and recklessness, as well as the clerk-magistrate hearing procedure.
The common-law test for reckless operation is different from the definition of recklessness in Section 24G(c). For reckless homicide by motor vehicle, the Legislature enacted an express statutory definition based on conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Counsel should use the definition governing the actual charge rather than move language from one offense into another.
The Public-Way or Public-Access Element
The Commonwealth must prove operation on a way or in a place to which the public has a right of access, or access as invitees or licensees. A public street ordinarily qualifies. A privately owned parking area or access road can also qualify when the public is invited to use it. The defense may contest the public-way element when the operation occurred in a purely private location with restricted access.
The judge or jury cannot assume that a location qualifies from the fact that police responded there. Evidence may include ownership, signs, gates, customary use, photographs, maps, and testimony about who could enter. Under the District Court motor vehicle homicide instructions, Massachusetts judges submit the covered location to the jury as a separate element.
Penalties and License Consequences for Negligent or Reckless Operation
Section 24(2)(a) authorizes a fine of $20 to $200, imprisonment for two weeks to two years, or both. The two-week lower limit on imprisonment is different from the expressly nonsuspendable minimum sentences in Sections 24G(a) and 24L(1). Section 24(2)(a) does not contain the separate language in Sections 24G(a) and 24L(1) that bars suspension, probation, reduction, parole, or early release.
A defendant charged with negligent operation who is convicted, pleads guilty, admits to sufficient facts, or receives a continuance without a finding or a probationary disposition must also pay a $250 Head Injury Treatment Services Trust Fund assessment. A continuance without a finding may be legally available for ordinary negligent or reckless operation, but it is still a court disposition and is not the equivalent of a denied complaint, dismissal, or acquittal.
| License issue after conviction | Section 24 rule |
|---|---|
| Initial revocation decision | The Registry may revoke and ordinarily must revoke unless the court recommends otherwise; the Registry retains authority even after a favorable court recommendation |
| Adult first conviction | If the Registry revokes, no reinstatement before 60 days from the conviction |
| Later conviction within three years | No reinstatement before one year from the revocation |
| Junior operator, first conviction | 180-day revocation |
| Junior operator, later conviction within three years | One-year revocation |
| Negligent-operation rescission | After investigation, the Registry may rescind the revocation; rescission is discretionary, not automatic |
An appeal does not automatically stay a revocation. The Registry may also revoke the registrations of vehicles owned or exclusively controlled by the defendant. Counsel should separate the criminal disposition from the Registry action and verify what appears on the driving record rather than infer the license result from the courtroom result alone.
Felony OUI Motor Vehicle Homicide Under Section 24G(a)
Section 24G(a) requires the Commonwealth to prove operation, a covered public way or place, a qualifying OUI or blood-alcohol theory, negligent or reckless operation so the public might be endangered, and causation of another person’s death. The OUI and dangerous-operation components are both required. Neither intoxication alone nor collision fault alone proves a Section 24G(a) charge.
The defense must test the alcohol or drug evidence under the rules governing the theory actually charged. A liquor case may depend on observations, field exercises, a breath test, hospital records, or a blood result. A drug case requires evidence tied to the charged substance and impairment. The firm addresses the complete OUI framework on its Massachusetts OUI defense page.
The punishment is state imprisonment for 2½ to 15 years and a fine of no more than $5,000, or incarceration in a jail or house of correction for one to 2½ years and a fine of no more than $5,000. The court cannot reduce or suspend the sentence below one year. The defendant is not eligible for probation, parole, furlough, or sentence deductions until serving one year.
The Two Misdemeanor Theories Under Section 24G(b)
Massachusetts recognizes two separate crimes under Section 24G(b). One requires a qualifying OUI or .08-or-greater theory and causation of death, but no additional proof of negligent operation. The other requires negligent operation so the public might be endangered and causation of death, but no proof of OUI. The Commonwealth must identify its chosen theory in the complaint.
Neither misdemeanor theory is a lesser-included offense of the other. Williams, 73 Mass. App. Ct. at 838-41. Negligent operation under Section 24(2)(a), however, is a lesser-included offense of motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation because the homicide charge also requires proof that the operation caused a death. The relationship between charges therefore depends on the branch alleged, not merely the section number printed on the complaint.
The authorized punishment under Section 24G(b) is 30 days to 2½ years in a jail or house of correction, a fine of $300 to $3,000, or both. The statute authorizes a fine-only sentence, so the 30-day lower limit is not a mandatory jail sentence in every case.
Reckless Homicide by Motor Vehicle Under Section 24G(c)
For Section 24G(c), the Commonwealth must prove operation on a covered way or place, reckless operation so the public might be endangered, and causation of death. For a Section 24G(c) charge, reckless operation means consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered.
The authorized punishment is up to 2½ years in a house of correction, up to five years in state prison, a fine of no more than $3,000, or both. The prosecution does not have to prove OUI. Evidence of alcohol or drugs may still become relevant to the alleged recklessness, but the Commonwealth must prove the statutory mental state and causation rather than rely on the seriousness of the outcome.
Causation in a Motor Vehicle Homicide Case
Every Section 24G theory requires proof that the defendant’s operation caused the death. The test for factual causation is ordinarily whether the death would have occurred without the charged conduct. The test for legal causation is whether the death was a natural and probable consequence of the charged conduct and whether the result was reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances.
The Commonwealth does not have to prove that the defendant’s conduct was the only cause. More than one cause can operate together. A victim’s negligence is not comparative negligence in the civil sense and does not automatically defeat the charge. The victim’s negligence remains relevant when it bears on whether the defendant’s operation was a cause, whether another event was independent and intervening, or whether the prosecution’s reconstruction is reliable.
Counsel may need more than the police conclusion to evaluate causation. The defense may need the crash report, scene measurements, photographs, video, event-data-recorder material, airbag-control-module data, vehicle inspections, medical records, autopsy findings, toxicology, and qualified reconstruction or medical testimony. Commonwealth v. Angelo Todesca Corp., 446 Mass. 128 (2006), illustrates how the result of a case can depend on reasonable precautions and the actual mechanism of the collision.
Disposition and License Revocation Under Section 24G
A judge cannot continue a Section 24G charge without a finding or place it on file. The prohibition on a continuance without a finding or placement on file applies to the misdemeanor branches as well as the felony branch. Commonwealth v. Millican, 449 Mass. 298, 300-03 (2007). G.L. c. 90, § 24G(a) separately bars pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276, § 87 for a person charged under that subsection.
The District Court has jurisdiction over Section 24G(a), although the Commonwealth may proceed by indictment in the Superior Court when it seeks a state prison sentence. Millican, 449 Mass. at 299. Counsel must examine the forum, charging document, and requested sentence together. The word “felony” does not by itself mean that every Section 24G(a) case begins or ends in Superior Court.
After a conviction under Section 24G(a), (b), or (c), the Registry revokes the license or right to operate for 15 years. After a later Section 24G conviction, the Registry revokes the license or right to operate for life. An appeal does not stay the revocation. The Registry must restore the license or right to operate if the prosecution ultimately ends in the defendant’s favor.
OUI Causing Serious Bodily Injury Under Section 24L
G.L. c. 90, § 24L is a separate offense for serious bodily injury rather than death. For Section 24L, serious bodily injury means an injury creating a substantial risk of death, producing total disability, or causing the loss or substantial impairment of a bodily function for a substantial period.
Section 24L(1) requires a qualifying OUI or .08-or-greater theory, negligent or reckless operation so the public might be endangered, and causation of serious bodily injury. The punishment is six months to 2½ years in a house of correction and a fine of no more than $5,000, or 2½ to 10 years in state prison and that fine. The six-month minimum is nonsuspendable. A judge cannot continue a Section 24L(1) charge without a finding or place it on file. The Registry also imposes a two-year license revocation.
Section 24L(2) requires a qualifying OUI or .08-or-greater theory and causation of serious bodily injury, but no separate proof of negligent or reckless operation. Section 24L(2) authorizes up to 2½ years in a house of correction, a fine of at least $3,000, or both. Section 24L(1) and Section 24L(2) are separate branches, not one generic “serious-injury OUI” offense.
Immediate Threat Suspension Before the Criminal Result
After a serious collision, the police frequently submit a separate request for an immediate threat suspension under M.G.L. c. 90, § 22(a). The police do not submit the request automatically. Injury or death is not itself the statutory standard. The Registrar may suspend or revoke the license when a reported motor vehicle law violation gives the Registrar reason to believe that continued operation presents the serious public-safety threat described in § 22(a). The police can submit the request before an arrest, complaint, indictment, guilty plea, or conviction.
Through an immediate threat order, the Registrar can suspend the license immediately and indefinitely while the collision investigation and criminal case remain pending. The driver is entitled to an RMV hearing within 30 days. Counsel should obtain the complete police Form LE100 (the Request for Immediate Threat License Suspension or Revocation), crash reports, reconstruction materials, recordings, photographs, vehicle data, and every attachment sent to the RMV, and compare those records with the criminal discovery. The Massachusetts immediate threat license suspension guide explains the records procedure, hearing, reinstatement, and appeals. The immediate threat FAQs provide concise answers.
Evidence and Defense Preparation After a Serious Collision
Defense counsel should begin the investigation before physical and digital evidence disappears. Modern vehicles can contain event data, speed and braking information, restraint-system records, diagnostic information, and infotainment or phone connections. Nearby businesses, residences, buses, and traffic systems may have video. Weather, lighting, construction, road markings, sight obstructions, and signal timing can change before trial.
A police crash reconstruction is expert evidence that the defense can test and challenge. Counsel should examine the investigator’s measurements, software inputs, assumptions, training, vehicle inspections, photographs, and alternative explanations. An expert who lacks the knowledge needed to evaluate a vehicle’s electronic system cannot reliably eliminate that system as a cause. Commonwealth v. Guinan, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 445, 450-55 (2014).
Counsel must also test witness accounts carefully. A traumatic event can affect perception, sequence, distance, and speed estimates. Video may establish what a witness could see. Prior statements, 911 calls, body-camera recordings, and scene diagrams can reveal changes in a witness’s account. Attorney Serpa prepares cross-examination from the case-specific physical and testimonial record rather than a fixed script.
In a case that includes an OUI allegation, the defense must separately examine the stop or encounter, statements, field sobriety evidence, breath or blood evidence, hospital records, toxicology, retrograde opinions, and the connection between any substance and operation. A breath test final analysis, a blood alcohol result, or a drug finding does not eliminate the prosecution’s burden to prove admissibility, the charged OUI theory, dangerous operation where required, and causation.
Related Charges, Citations, and Court Procedure
After a collision investigation, the police or the Commonwealth can bring separate allegations of OUI, negligent or reckless operation, leaving the scene of an accident, operating after suspension, manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle, or civil traffic violations. Each charge has its own elements. Some convictions may be lesser-included or duplicative under the theory proved. A judge may impose separate punishment for other convictions.
For example, ordinary OUI and operating to endanger are separate from each other, but each can be a component of felony Section 24G(a). Operating to endanger is a lesser-included offense of motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation. The two misdemeanor Section 24G(b) theories are not lesser-included offenses of one another. Felony motor vehicle homicide may be duplicative of OUI manslaughter when the greater conviction necessarily proves every element of the Section 24G(a) offense. Commonwealth v. Guaman, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 36, 45-47 (2016).
An ordinary negligent- or reckless-operation allegation often begins with a criminal motor-vehicle citation. A driver can preserve a clerk-magistrate hearing before a complaint issues by making a written request within four days, if the statutory conditions are satisfied. A case that begins with an arrest, or that includes a homicide charge or another felony, usually goes to arraignment without a clerk-magistrate hearing. The firm explains the timing and notice rules in its criminal citation guide.
In an ordinary misdemeanor case, no complaint issues and no arraignment occurs if the clerk-magistrate denies the application after a hearing. A clerk-magistrate hearing is not available in every collision case. A driver charged in a case involving a death or a felony faces a different procedure and more serious penalties. The firm addresses probable cause, denial, abeyance, and preparation in its guide to Massachusetts clerk-magistrate hearings.
Criminal Records, Students, Professionals, and Noncitizens
A denied complaint, a dismissal, a continuance without a finding, a guilty finding, and an acquittal each produce a different record. A complaint and its disposition can appear on a Massachusetts criminal record even where the judge imposes no jail sentence. A sealed or nonconviction record continues to exist, but sealing limits who can see it.
A college or university may conduct a separate disciplinary or safety process after a serious driving allegation. The school’s authority, reporting rules, interim measures, and standard of proof depend on the institution and handbook. The firm addresses coordination between the criminal case and the school process in its student defense practice.
A licensed professional may face an application, renewal, employer, or board question. The answer depends on the profession, the exact question asked, and the disposition. Attorney Serpa reviews licensing questions together with the criminal strategy and directs clients to the firm’s professional-license consequences page for the separate disclosure analysis.
A noncitizen should obtain individualized immigration advice before accepting a plea or making a disclosure. Immigration counsel reviews the charge, the conduct, the plea language, the sentence, the person’s visa or status, any travel plans, and each application question. Serpa Law Office coordinates criminal defense with immigration counsel and explains the division of work between criminal defense counsel and immigration counsel in its immigration-consequences practice area.
Frequently Asked Questions About Operating to Endanger and Motor Vehicle Homicide in Massachusetts
What is 90/24 in Massachusetts?
90/24 is the docket shorthand for G.L. c. 90, § 24, the Massachusetts statute that contains operating under the influence and, in § 24(2)(a), negligent operation and reckless operation, often called operating to endanger or driving to endanger. A complaint that reads 90/24 may therefore charge OUI, negligent operation, or both. Negligent or reckless operation under § 24(2)(a) is punishable by a fine of $20 to $200, imprisonment for two weeks to two years, or both, plus a $250 head injury assessment. Motor vehicle homicide is a different section, G.L. c. 90, § 24G, and OUI causing serious bodily injury is § 24L.
What is operating to endanger in Massachusetts?
Operating to endanger is the common name for negligent operation or reckless operation under G.L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a). For negligent operation the Commonwealth must prove that the person operated a motor vehicle on a public way or another covered place, and did so negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might have been endangered. No crash, injury, or death is required. Commonwealth v. Duffy, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 921 (2004). Reckless operation requires driving that went substantially beyond a failure to use reasonable care and created a high degree of danger. Speed alone does not establish either offense, and a mistake in judgment or a reasonable reaction to an emergency is not necessarily criminal negligence.
What is motor vehicle homicide in Massachusetts?
Motor vehicle homicide is a set of separate crimes under G.L. c. 90, § 24G, each of which requires proof that the defendant’s operation caused another person’s death. Section 24G(a) is the felony: a qualifying OUI or .08 or greater theory together with negligent or reckless operation. Section 24G(b) contains two misdemeanors: OUI causing death without separate proof of negligence, and negligent operation causing death without OUI. Section 24G(c) is reckless homicide by motor vehicle, which requires conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The two § 24G(b) offenses are separate crimes, not labels for the same offense. Commonwealth v. Williams, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 833 (2009). A fatal crash by itself proves none of them.
Is there a DUI manslaughter charge in Massachusetts?
Massachusetts has two charges for a death caused by a drunk driver. Felony OUI motor vehicle homicide under G.L. c. 90, § 24G(a) requires a qualifying OUI or .08 or greater theory, negligent or reckless operation, and causation of death, and is punishable by up to fifteen years in state prison, with one year that cannot be suspended. Manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence is a separate and more serious charge. When the Commonwealth convicts on both, the felony motor vehicle homicide may be duplicative of the OUI manslaughter because the greater conviction proves every element of the § 24G(a) offense. Commonwealth v. Guaman, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 36 (2016).
What is motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation in Massachusetts?
Motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation is the misdemeanor under G.L. c. 90, § 24G(b) that requires proof that the defendant operated negligently so that the public might be endangered and that the operation caused a death, with no proof of alcohol or drugs. The punishment is 30 days to two and one half years in a jail or house of correction, a fine of $300 to $3,000, or both; because the statute allows a fine alone, the 30 days is not mandatory in every case. A judge cannot continue the charge without a finding or place it on file. Commonwealth v. Millican, 449 Mass. 298 (2007). The Registry revokes the license for 15 years after a conviction.
What is the penalty for felony OUI motor vehicle homicide in Massachusetts?
Under G.L. c. 90, § 24G(a), the punishment is imprisonment in state prison for two and one half to fifteen years and a fine of up to $5,000, or incarceration in a jail or house of correction for one to two and one half years and a fine of up to $5,000. The court cannot reduce or suspend the sentence below one year, and the defendant is not eligible for probation, parole, furlough, or sentence deductions until one year has been served. Pretrial probation and a continuance without a finding are barred. The Registry revokes the license for 15 years. The District Court has jurisdiction, but the Commonwealth may indict in the Superior Court when it seeks a state prison sentence.
What is reckless homicide by motor vehicle in Massachusetts?
Reckless homicide by motor vehicle is the offense under G.L. c. 90, § 24G(c). The Commonwealth must prove operation on a covered way or place, reckless operation so that the public might be endangered, and causation of death, with no proof of alcohol or drugs required. For this section, recklessness means consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered, a different test from reckless operation under § 24(2)(a). The punishment is up to two and one half years in a house of correction, up to five years in state prison, a fine of up to $3,000, or both a fine and imprisonment. The Registry revokes the license for 15 years.
How long is the license revocation for motor vehicle homicide in Massachusetts?
Fifteen years. After a conviction under G.L. c. 90, § 24G(a), (b), or (c), the Registry revokes the license or right to operate for 15 years. After a second § 24G conviction the revocation is for life. An appeal does not stay the revocation. The Registry must restore the license if the prosecution ultimately ends in the defendant’s favor. After a conviction for OUI causing serious bodily injury under § 24L(1), the revocation is two years. Separately, after a serious collision the police often ask the Registrar for an immediate threat suspension under G.L. c. 90, § 22(a), which can suspend the license while the criminal case is pending.
What is the license revocation period for operating to endanger in Massachusetts?
For an adult’s first conviction of negligent or reckless operation under G.L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a), the Registry may revoke the license and ordinarily does unless the judge recommends otherwise, and no reinstatement occurs before 60 days from the conviction. For a later conviction within three years, no reinstatement occurs before one year from the revocation. A junior operator faces a 180-day revocation for a first conviction and one year for a later conviction within three years. After investigation the Registry may rescind a negligent operation revocation, but rescission is discretionary. An appeal does not stay the revocation, and the Registry may also revoke the registrations of vehicles the defendant owns or exclusively controls.
Does a fatal crash automatically mean a criminal charge in Massachusetts?
No. A fatal crash does not by itself establish criminal negligence, recklessness, intoxication, or causation. For every § 24G theory the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s operation caused the death: that the death would not have occurred without the charged conduct, and that it was a natural and probable result that was reasonably foreseeable. More than one cause can operate together, and another driver’s or a pedestrian’s negligence does not automatically defeat the charge, but it is relevant to causation and to the reliability of the police reconstruction. The defense obtains the crash report, scene measurements, video, event data recorder and airbag module data, medical and autopsy records, and qualified reconstruction testimony.
Can you get a CWOF for motor vehicle homicide in Massachusetts?
No. A judge cannot continue a G.L. c. 90, § 24G charge without a finding or place it on file, and the bar applies to the misdemeanor branches under § 24G(b) as well as the felony under § 24G(a). Commonwealth v. Millican, 449 Mass. 298 (2007). Section 24G(a) also bars pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276, § 87. The same bar on a continuance without a finding applies to OUI causing serious bodily injury under § 24L(1). Ordinary negligent or reckless operation under § 24(2)(a) is different: a continuance without a finding may be permitted there, although it is still a court disposition on the record.
What is OUI causing serious bodily injury under G.L. c. 90, § 24L?
Section 24L is the offense for a drunk or drugged driver who causes serious bodily injury rather than death: an injury creating a substantial risk of death, producing total disability, or causing the loss or substantial impairment of a bodily function for a substantial period. Section 24L(1) requires a qualifying OUI or .08 or greater theory, negligent or reckless operation, and causation of the injury; the punishment is six months to two and one half years in a house of correction or two and one half to ten years in state prison, with a six-month minimum that cannot be suspended, no continuance without a finding, and a two-year license revocation. Section 24L(2) requires only OUI and causation and allows up to two and one half years.
Representation by Attorney Joe Serpa
Attorney Joe Serpa has defended Massachusetts criminal, OUI, and motor-vehicle cases since 1995. In a serious collision case, he identifies the precise statutory branch, preserves evidence, examines the Commonwealth’s experts, and prepares the legal and factual issues that can change the charge, the admissible evidence, or the result.
Representation may begin at the investigation or clerk-magistrate stage and continue through motion practice, trial, sentencing, and license consequences. Attorney Serpa appears in the Massachusetts District Courts and Boston Municipal Court and handles indicted cases in the Superior Court when the charge or prosecution requires it.
For a confidential consultation about negligent or reckless operation, motor vehicle homicide, OUI causing serious bodily injury, or a related collision charge in Greater Boston, call 617.936.0201 or contact Serpa Law Office.
Last reviewed: August 18, 2026.
We Accept the Following Payment Solutions
