The Brief
What You Need to Know. No More, No Less.
How the Donnell Decision Could Overturn Gun Possession Convictions in Massachusetts
In Commonwealth v. Donnell, the SJC ruled that Massachusetts's discretionary gun license law for nonresidents violated the Second Amendment. If you were charged under §10(a) or §10(h) and your conviction wasn’t final when Bruen was decided, you may be eligible to have your conviction vacated.
Massachusetts SJC Strikes Down “May Issue” Firearms Law for Out-of-State Residents: What It Means for Defendants
In the wake of a major decision issued this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has struck down the Commonwealth’s former “may issue” gun licensing scheme for out-of-state residents. In Commonwealth v. Donnell, 495 Mass. 471 (2025), the Court ruled that the discretionary license process violated the Second Amendment. For anyone charged under M.G.L. c. 269 §§ 10(a) or 10(h), this ruling may open the door to significant relief—even vacating a conviction entirely.
What Was the Issue?
Massachusetts previously required out-of-state residents to obtain a temporary license to carry a firearm through a process that gave wide discretion to the licensing authority. Under the now-invalidated law, the colonel of the State Police could deny applications “based on such terms and conditions as [they] may deem proper.” The SJC found this discretionary scheme unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which requires gun regulations to be consistent with the nation’s historical traditions.
Who Is Affected?
If you’re an out-of-state resident who was charged under §10(a) or §10(h) after Bruen (June 23, 2022) but before the legislature changed the law (August 10, 2022), you are in the same position as Mr. Donnell and are entitled to dismissal of those charges.
Even if you were charged before Bruen, you might still be eligible for relief—as long as your conviction wasn’t final when Bruen came down. This primarily applies to defendants convicted after trial who had an appeal pending as of June 2022.
What About Massachusetts Residents?
The Donnell decision only addressed out-of-state residents, but its reasoning could soon extend to in-state residents who were subject to similar discretionary licensing schemes. The SJC is currently reviewing that issue in Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, with a decision expected later this year. Depending on that outcome, in-state defendants convicted under §10(a) between 2015 and 2022 may also have grounds for relief.
What Should You Do?
If you’re serving a sentence for unlawful firearm possession as an out-of-state resident—or were convicted but haven’t exhausted your appeals—now is the time to act. The Donnell decision could be the key to dismissing your case or overturning your conviction.
If you think your case might be affected, I’m happy to review your record and help determine whether a motion to vacate or dismiss is appropriate.
Breath Test Results Thrown Out in Massachusetts: What the Hallinan Decision Means for OUI Defendants
In Commonwealth v. Hallinan, the SJC ruled that breath tests from 2011–2019 are presumptively inadmissible due to systemic misconduct by the Office of Alcohol Testing. This decision could reshape countless OUI cases across Massachusetts.
Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a major ruling in Commonwealth v. Hallinan, 491 Mass. 730 (2023), reaffirming what defense attorneys have known for years: the state’s breathalyzer program was a mess, and the evidence it produced can’t be trusted. The decision formally excludes breath test results from a critical time period—June 2011 through April 18, 2019—unless the Commonwealth can prove their reliability in each individual case.
As a criminal defense attorney, I’ve seen firsthand how breath test results are often treated as ironclad evidence in OUI prosecutions. The Hallinan decision is a long-overdue recognition that science without transparency isn’t justice—it’s just conviction by shortcut.
What Did the SJC Decide?
The Court upheld a lower court finding that the Office of Alcohol Testing (OAT) failed in its obligations to ensure the scientific integrity of breathalyzer machines. Specifically, OAT withheld evidence, failed to disclose critical information about calibration practices, and essentially misled courts and defense counsel for years. The SJC ruled that breath test results from the Alcotest 9510 device during the affected time period are presumptively inadmissible unless the state can meet a high burden to prove reliability.
Who Is Affected?
If you’re facing an OUI charge based on a breath test between June 2011 and April 18, 2019, your defense just gained significant leverage. Prosecutors may now be forced to drop breathalyzer evidence entirely—or prove in court why your specific test should be admissible.
For people who already pled guilty or were convicted during that period, Hallinan could also open the door to post-conviction relief. If your case depended on a breath test, it’s worth revisiting whether that conviction was built on unreliable evidence.
Why It Matters
Hallinan isn’t just about faulty machines—it’s about accountability. When the government presents scientific evidence in court, it has a duty to ensure that evidence is accurate, fair, and disclosed fully to the defense. The misconduct by the Office of Alcohol Testing violated that duty, and the SJC’s decision reflects the seriousness of that breach.
This case should serve as a warning: justice can’t be automated. Breath tests may seem like simple numbers, but behind those numbers is a system that depends on honesty, oversight, and due process. When that system fails, people’s lives are unfairly upended. I’m glad the SJC stepped in—and I’ll continue fighting to make sure my clients are judged by facts, not faulty machines.