Menu
What is the Valor Act and why is it important in relation to OUI Charges?
Start Your Free Consultation
Law Offices of Steven J. Topazio
44 School Street
Suite 1000C
Boston, MA 02108
Home❱The Valor Act Allows A Judge To Dismiss Second Offense OUI Charges

The Valor Act Allows A Judge To Dismiss Second Offense OUI Charges

The Valor Act

The pretrial diversion statute, G. L. c. 276A, as amended by the so-called VALOR Act, permits a judge to dismiss a second offense OUI charge brought against a qualifying veteran upon his or her successful completion of an approved pretrial diversion program despite the fact that the 2nd offense OUI statute prohibits a second or subsequent offense, from being “placed on file or continued without a finding.” G. L. c. 90, § 24.

Pretrial diversion gives a judge discretion to allow a criminal charge to be diverted away from prosecution directly to a treatment program designed to help the offender. Upon successful completion of the treatment program, the offender is rewarded by having his or her criminal charges dismissed.

The VALOR Act was enacted in 2012 in the aftermath of protracted American military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. In recognition of the toll taken on American veterans, the VALOR Act amended the pretrial diversion statute G. L. c. 276A to now include all qualifying veterans to help those veterans recover from the trauma of war.

In a recent case, the court had to decide whether the VALOR Act could be used to dismiss a criminal charge which specifically states it cannot be dismissed or continued without a finding (CWOF). The court concluded that the pretrial diversion statute, G. L. c. 276A, as amended by the VALOR Act, St. 2012, c. 108, does permit a District Court or Boston Municipal Court judge to exercise his or her discretion to enter a continuance without a finding after an admission to a charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, second offense, brought against a qualifying veteran or active service member, notwithstanding the restrictions imposed by G. L. c. 90, §§ 24 and 24D which prevents a CWOF, and that, if a CWOF is not available, the judge may dismiss the charge outright, over the Commonwealth’s objection, following the defendant’s successful completion of an approved pretrial diversion program.

COMMONWEALTH v. MORGAN, 476 Mass. 768 (2017)