According to wickedlocalnewton, Evan Hoffman plead pled* guilty to motor vehicular homicide in the death of Jose Puzul Perez on Beacon Street in Newton on June 26, 2010. He was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in a House of Corrections.
Considering how many Newton residents predicted he’d get off — given the presumed wealth of his family — this is not the turn that most people were expecting. Interesting.
*wet noodle from Alderman Hess-Mahan acknowledged
15 months. And the library worker that allegedly looked at things he shouldn’t have been looking at faces mandatory sentencing (5 years?). You sell pot for the second time, you get mandatory two years. 15 months for admitting a charge that includes the word “murder”
It’s noteworthy that he received the maximum sentence of 2 1/2 years permitted for the charge of negligent motor vehicle homicide. Whether he ultimately serves the entire 2 1/2 years will depends upon whether he can conform his behavior to societal demands after he finishes his committed 15 month sentence. Having a portion of a sentence suspended is like having a huge stick hanging over your head and should be an incentive to behave. (Operative word: should.)
“Homicide”, that is (in Mass)…
Lisap, another 15 months isn’t much of a stick. What level is this crime and what house of correction is he likely to see? Framingham?
I’ve been told that Hoffman was bawling and this story from Patch confirms that. It also says he’s been depressed for the past two years…
Gail, Was he on any probation for other crimes?
Hoss,
I don’t think so but I no longer have the paperwork. If I remember correctly — which is not at all a guarantee — he had just gotten off probation for something when the accident happened. If you search the wickedlocalnewton archives, you should find an article written by Dan Atkinson that lists Hoffman’s record.
@Hoss – the statute (Mass. General Laws Chapter 90 Section 24G) is the law which deals with “Homicide by Motor Vehicle”. This case falls under paragraph (b) which provides in part:
b) Whoever, upon any way or in any place to which the public has a right of access or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle . . . recklessly or negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered and by any such operation causes the death of another person, shall be guilty of homicide by a motor vehicle and shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not less than thirty days nor more than two and one-half years, or by a fine of not less than three hundred nor more than three thousand dollars, or both.
So, under that part of the statute, negligent/reckless motor vehicle homicide carries a maximum prison sentence of two and a half years. This charge is considered a misdemeanor. In Massachusetts the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor isn’t predicated so much on how long the sentence may be but, rather, where it will be served. Felony charges are those which may result in incarceration in one of the state prison’s, as opposed to a house of correction. It’s a bit arcane and confusing.
Fifteen months isn’t a holiday, but as I already pointed out, he was sentenced to the maximum permitted under the statute. Whether he ultimately serves the entire two and a half years will depend entirely upon how he conducts himself once he is released from the House of Correction. As to where he will serve, I don’t want to guess but the Mass. Dept. of Correction maintains a searchable database so it will be possible to find out where he is assigned in the not too distant future.
Regardless of the too-low sentence, this is good news, both that he’ll go to jail and that he plead guilty rather.
Lisap, The charge and the circumstances of the charge is now at the end of a very long rap sheet. The judge could have sentenced 2 1/2 years period. 15 months is all relative. His friends in Afghanistan might not think it’s all that long — I don’t.
The Patch article says he’s lost his drivers license for 15 years. Also:
Hoffman has been diagnosed with clinical depression as a result of the crash and court proceedings and has been prescribed anxiety medication.
Hoffman stood next to his attorney crying for the majority of the proceedings, expressing several times to both the family and the court that he wished he was the one that had died in the accident, not Puzul-Perez.
I don’t remember too many people predicting he’d “get off”, as Gail mentions at the top of this thread. I do recall a lot of anger regarding the crime itself, frustration about the conduct and pace of the investigation, and disgruntlement that the charge [and potential consequence] was not tough enough. I did not believe Evan Hoffman would plead guilty. But after the charge was finally determined, I expected he’d end up being found guilty and get about 2 years.
Frankly, I gave up on the justice system long ago, when I realized it was disconnected from anything resembling “justice.” Hoss makes some excellent points above about the 5 years a library worker is facing, or the fact that selling marijuana is in any way viewed as a crime comparable to recklessly causing the death of another person. One need simply compare the crime and punishment of Evan Hoffman and Denzel Horne, to realize how screwed up our laws and courts are.
I hate to be cynical – but why did he plead guilty now and not go to a jury trial. His lawyer must of realized that he would be better off with Judge Klein and not a jury. I wonder what would have come out in the jury trial if they had proceeded???
And I also understand that his lawyer was trying to get only 6 months in jail and 6 months of home confinement.
The only reasson he is clinically depressed because this time he killed someone and mommy could not get him off.
15 years is not long enough for him not to drive. He had just gotten his license back 2 days prior to killing Jose. He should have LOST it for life.
And yes Gail there are many of us who thought he would not even do a day in jail. We stand Corrected.
But maybe Judge Klein reads the blogs and might have figureed that this case if she was lenient it would have gotten her some press she would not want. And since Hoffman no longer lives on the South Side he might have lost that edge with her.
Sentencing is a complex and difficult topic, but a few not necessarily internally consistent thoughts:
* Evan Hoffman is going to serve time. That’s appropriate.
* Our motor vehicle laws and the way that they are enforced reflect a systemic leniency towards those who cause death or injury by car. We need an attitude adjustment.
* Arguably, a pedophile is a greater ongoing threat to be a future offender than someone who commits death by automobile. It might be better for society to lock the pedophile away.
* We put too many people in jail for too long in this country. Maybe Hoffman deserves to be in jail longer, but we should be very leery of lock-’em-up-and-throw-away-the-key sentiments. We need to express our community outrage and to reduce recidivism through other mechanisms.
I do not conclude that statements about depression are evidence that he regrets this death. His crime history hints that he was not a happy, well adjusted youth. Replacing Budweiser with Prozac is logical and something a lawyer would advise.
It’s unfortunate that they didn’t do what was necessary so that this could have been prosecuted as drunk driving – that’s what would have gotten a longer sentence. At least he won’t have a license for a very long time.
I think his depression and remorse may well be real and connected to this incident. Young adults tend to not think anything really bad can really happen to them or be caused by them. The shock and horror of having taken someone’s life can lead to major changes in a person. Let’s hope that’s true in this case.
Likely, it is the beginning of the major (civil) action for money compensation. For example, the family of Milena Del Valle (killed in Big Dig ceiling collapse) received about $30 million (there were 15 civil lawsuits).
Who and how much will compensate the family of Jose Puzul-Perez, who was the main money provider for his family?
What will the City of Newton do? The deadly accident happened on the city’s territory and was caused by the city’s citizen, who was multiple DUI offender and favorite of Newton Police and Newton District Court, which were not able to stop Hoffman.
Newton Tab has this report:
“Hoffman admitted to the court he shouldn’t have been driving. He said he takes anti-anxiety medication.”
If these two sentences are connected, hasn’t he admitted past the DA’s charges and admitted felony homicide?? He admitted multiple times per police reports of drinking that evening. If he now says he had meds on top of drinking (explains erratic, violent behavior in the BU area), that seems to point to felony operation. No wonder the blood work was protected. The judge disallowed viewing that report but allowed viewing any past history for the victim (who was just in the US for two years). Fair?
@Hoss, Brief answer: no. I don’t think there was much question about whether he had consumed alcohol the evening before. The question for the D.A.’s office was whether they could establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hoffman was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the accident. In deciding which charges to pursue the D.A. had to confront several facts in the case including (a) Hoffman passed a field sobriety test and having passed that, there was (b) no breathalyzer and (c) Hoffman refused medical treatment at the scene. The court inspected the medical records and they contained nothing for the Commonwealth’s case. Personally, I do not believe that any blood tests were taken, but that’s simply my opinion.
Two and a half years for taking a life isn’t enough. If any of us had to answer the question, “what would be enough” for the loss of a loved one, I suspect that there isn’t an answer that could even begin to meet that loss. It is, however, the amount of time that is permitted by our laws, as created by our legislature. The courts, the judges and the lawyers do not create our laws – we simply work within them, sometimes we try to work around them, but we a nation of laws.
Lisap — You’ve been very helpful to my understanding of this matter ever since I first posted to a local blog almost two years ago because of this sad event. As a final question here: If in the questioning at the scene where Hoffman admitted drinking as well as being taken into custody the same day (night) — If he said anything about anti-anxiety meds, might this whole scenario have been elevated to a felony trial ultimately, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, would there have been an arrest that led to more detailed questioning? (For general understanding, there was no arrest after this death, Hoffman rode home with family)
Hoss – did he say he was taking anti-anxiety meds at the time of the accident, or that he currently takes them? And depending on the dosage he takes, it might not make much difference – remember that he passed a field sobriety test.
@Hoss, I’m glad to hear that I’ve been able to provide you some insight and I’ll try to answer this question. It’s difficult to say what might have been under a different set of circumstances. Assuming he was taking anti-anxiety medications at the time of the accident, and assuming that those medications were such that driving while taking them was contra-indicated, then I suppose that the case could have taken a different path. Those are a lot of assumptions though. As for whether anything could or would have been gleaned by taking him into custody, I will say that I sincerely doubt that would have been fruitful for a very straightforward reason: Hoffman was not inexperienced in matters of criminal process. He had been through criminal proceedings already and, having prior experience, I suspect that he would have invoked his right to remain silent and would have refused to talk to the police, as would have been his Constitutional right. Remember, the police may try to question someone under arrest but they have no way to force someone to submit to questioning. If it is to have any value and be admissible, the right to remain silent and the right against self-incrimination must be freely and voluntarily given up. So, the answer to your question whether there would have been an arrest with more detailed questioning, I would say highly unlikely.
I would also say that I do believe that if there was anything in the hospital records which would have supported the Commonwealth’s position that Hoffman was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the accident, then those materials would have been turned over to the prosecution. I really don’t doubt that at all. I think it was difficult for the D.A.’s office to overcome the fact that he passed the field sobriety test.
Driving is not usually contraindicated while taking anti-anxiety meds (though you should be cautious when first starting them to make sure you’re ok). What is contraindicated is mixing them with alcohol. However, it’s no more illegal to be impaired due to a combo of meds and alcohol than to be impaired due to alcohol alone, and we already know he passed the field sobriety test.
@Lisap, I agree with your insightful analysis, but did Mr. Hoffman pass his field sobriety test or did he refuse to take one, which in my view would be his Fifth Amendment right as well? Drivers suspected of being intoxicated can refuse but their license is automatically revoked for a period of time.
Ted — He passed. However, the police report mentions various states of confusion including that he told officers that he was driving on the left side of the road and when asked why he did not know. He was also in an agitated state that followed his state from hours before when he was breaking car windows. When asked by a passerby for his phone to call 911, he used an obscenity toward the person. I know some officers are trained in recognizing drug effects – not sure if the officer doing the field test was one of them.
Hoffman was very talkative at the scene which makes be wonder what he might have offered under further questioning. He told officers that he was drinking that evening and that he was arrested.
It is really not the hard to find yourself in cuffs and getting a visit to a police station. There was lots of evidence here of serious wrongdoing yet Hoffman got a ride home with family. Were police extra careful for some reason? Did Hoffman’s lawyer in other matters make police actions a center of defense? This I wonder.
This is the report: http://tinyurl.com/Hoffreport
Why was this dragged out for almost 2 years and then when it was supposed to go to a jury he pleads guilty?? What is the opinion of the lawyers out there. My non legal view would be that there was more that would have come out in the trial and the High paid Mr. Burke probably realized he had a better chance with Klein than a jury.
Would what might have come out – help Joses family with a civil suit??
I would really like to hear other opinions.
Hoss,
Maybe there’s a larger societal issue. The default assumption is to treat a car crash as an “accident” rather than something for which one or the other driver should have criminal responsibility. I think that’s why Hoffman went home and not to the station. Police weren’t treating it as a crime scene.
I think that the class angle distracts from the larger problem. If you want to kill someone in this country and escape criminal liability, kill them with a car.
While I’m not delighted with the sentence Hoffman will serve, the slight bit of good news is that he has been found criminally responsible.
@Ted Hess-Mahan,
Hoss is correct: Hoffman took and passed the field sobriety test. The test was administered by a Sargent and Hoffman passed all 3 components of the test: alphabet, 9 step walk and one legged stand. The Sgt. stated in his report: “After Hoffman’s field sobriety test performance I formed the opinion that Hoffman had not been operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.” A little after 8:00 a.m. the captain commanding the scene had another officer approach Hoffman and ask him if he would be willing to perform another field sobriety test, and Hoffman declined the request.
It’s my understanding that Hoffman’s license was immediately suspended by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under the “Immediate Threat” statute.
“Revenge is a harmful action against a person or group in response to a grievance, be it real or perceived.” (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge).
A grievance is a wrong or hardship arisen from injustice. Justice is the act of being fair to a human (or humans). A human reaction to fairness is “wired” into the human brain, therefore being treated fairly satisfies a basic need of the human (or humans). If this basic need is not satisfied, the human (or humans) takes revenge on a person or group perceived being responsible for the grievance.
Thus there is a competition (in human brains) between Justice and Revenge: the less Justice – the more Revenge; and vice versa. The lack of Justice produces the revenges in the form of vandalism, anti-semitism, racism etc. So, the question is: how much and what kind of Revenge is and will be producing the wrongfull death of Jose Puzul-Perez?
Just outcome of the civil action (if any) would mitigate the Revenge.
Joanne, my opinion as a lawyer, which is influenced by what my many friends and colleagues who are criminal defense attorneys have told me, is that Judge Klein is no walk in the park for criminal defendants. A jury trial conviction would have provided her with an ample basis to impose the maximum 2-1/2 year sentence. But having a 15 month sentence with 9 months suspended for five years (a total of 2-1/2 years) provides a “carrot and stick” that should create a strong incentive for Mr. Hoffman to stay out of trouble for the next five years following his release. The evidence of excessive speed, drinking, property destruction and arrest in the hours leading up to the vehicular accident that killed the other driver would have been awfully difficult to overcome at trial on the charge of negligent vehicular homicide, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of 2-1/2 years. Whether he could have been charged for a more serious, felony offense is another question. But it is not unusual for a plea agreement or change of plea to guilty to occur on the courthouse steps, after both the prosecutor and the defendant have had a full and fair opportunity to obtain all of the evidence in preparation for trial. Indeed, the vast majority of civil and criminal cases end this way. Were that not so, and every case went to trial, the justice system in this country would literally grind to a halt. His guilty plea will probably also estop Mr. Hoffman from denying responsibility in a subsequent civil lawsuit for wrongful death by Mr. Perez’s family, which I fully expect to be filed if it has not been commenced already. It cannot bring Jose Perez back to his family, but a hefty judgment or settlement could bring some small measure of justice, however inadequate it might be.
Sean — It was obvious to police that Hoffman’s car was on the wrong side of the road. There were two witnesses that said he was speeding. Those are the basics of driving to endanger. Further, he told officers he had been drinking. He told officers he had been arrested. He admitted to being on the left side of the road. He was defensive about who was at fault. He showed no concern about the other driver and was irritated about calling 911. The road was dry and the speed limit was 35mph. Accidental head-on collision?
My math is bad. Two and a half years would be 30 months, 15 served and 15 suspended. Is that what he got?
With respect to a civil trial. Hoffman was not insured. He is an adult, not a minor. Where does one go to recover some of the types of expense the young children need (as we see in their impact statement that are not coping well)? If the SUV was not registered under his parents, what responsibility would they have?
@Joanne, I think that the benefit to postponing the trial was to permit Hoffman’s lawyer to stand before the court, as he did, and argue that his client had managed to stay out of trouble for the two years that the case has been pending. As a strategy it can be very effective.
@Sean: “Police weren’t treating it as a crime scene.”
Actually, I very strongly disagree. I think that the police did treat this as a potential homicide. As soon as the police learned that Hoffman went to Newton Wellesley for treatment they contacted the hospital and took steps to ensure that any blood or urine would be preserved. Hoffman asked to retrieve some property from his vehicle and the police informed him that his vehicle was evidence. If they were treating it as an accident they would have permitted him to take his property from his vehicle and they would have permitted him (or a tow company he called) to take the vehicle from the scene. Instead they took possession of his vehicle. If the police had drawn the conclusion that Hoffman was operating under the influence he would have been arrested on the spot. Clearly. To arrest for a misdemeanor the general rule is that the crime must have been committed in the officer’s presence. There are some exceptions, but I do not believe that negligent/reckless motor vehicle homicide is one of them. Perhaps it should be but that’s another conversation. Without an arrestable offense the police had no power to take him down to the station. Reality isn’t like “Law and Order” though I’m sure that many in law enforcement wish it were.
@Ted – your math is better than mine! You’re right – 30 months with 15 months to serve and 15 months suspended for 5 years. (Sorry – I’m only good at dividing by 3’s.)
Lisap,
All good points. Maybe the problem is that the simple act of killing someone with your car, without aggravating factors like alcohol, is just a misdemeanor.
Sean — You got it. If the victim was a baby in Hoffman’s care, for example, he could have been subjected to hours of relentless questioning just on SUSPICION they a felony might have occurred. There didn’t need to be blood or obvious trauma, I don’t think
Gail or Greg — If you had to print an editorial about this decision, what would the headline say??
Hoss – The headline is the easy part because it would only be a few words: Was justice served in Hoffman plea?
The next 500 or so words require more thought, and in my case, probably a deadline. But maybe not. Let me think about it.
@Sean, agreed. I think that we, as a society, are far too tolerant of really bad driving behaviors. An “accident” in my view means that a negative event happened even though the operator of a car was being careful. Given that view though, there are actually very few real accidents. Instead, what we call accidents are mostly entirely avoidable when people exercise care, caution and obey the rules of the road. Speeding and tailgating are just two of my pet peeves. Too many drivers view speed limits as nothing more than suggestions, and typically the police will not stop a motorist if they are within 5 miles per hour of the speed limit. Drivers have an expectation that they are permitted to drive at least 5 miles about the speed limit and this is wrong. I think speed limits, the number actually stated on the sign, should be vigorously enforced. I could go on and on but I’ll step off the soapbox now.
GIVEN that it wasn’t established at the time that Hoffman was drunk, this sentence seems reasonable.
I think what makes it hard to swallow is that there appears to be evidence he was extremely reckless, and that his comportment in general seemed to be one of spoiled brat out of control, based on his prior history.
Thus it feels like he’s gotten away with something.
It would be a plus if his remorse is genuine [a question mark for sure] and that he becomes a better adult.
Dan Fahey — With me, it’s more than the troubled kid doesn’t get it aspect. There are a couple levels beyond that;
1) It’s a Waban youth, able to bargain for great council versus what might have been the opposite end of the economic spectrum, someone that gets council from what could be a 2nd year Intellectual Property litigator that is getting create for his big name law firm (i.e., inexperienced pro bono council)
2) It’s some experience with police, their power over us, and what we often read of how that power is abused in cases of certain minorities as opposed to how that power was used with utter caution here…
3) It’s not only Hoffman’s history (that we know about, we don’t know what went on as a juvenile…), but his history that day. Who drives from lockup going 75mpg down Beacon? A witness further states he think he saw Hoffman getting stopped by police just prior to crashing!
4) Now, adding salt to the matter of justice, this quote by the Newton Tab ““Hoffman admitted to the court he shouldn’t have been driving. He said he takes anti-anxiety medication.” Did he say in court that he was impaired, that he should have know it, and he regrets it? If so — that’s a whole other ballgame that never gets played — he admitted a felony!
2 1/2 years is fine. 15 months in house of correction + 15 months contingent on being a reasonable citizen is not. The trigger on that extra 15 months is if he fails to get off the next time!
Hoss, Forgive me for jumping in, but I do have to take issue with your first point, (and for me this is a personal issue.) I think that there are many misconceptions about appointed counsel and public defenders. An IP litigator certainly could do some pro bono work, but you are not going to find that inexperienced associate on the Committee for Public Counsel appointment list. There are thousands of experienced lawyers in the state who accept appointed work, and there is competition to get on that list. Full time career public defenders who work exclusively for CPCS do have significant caseloads, yes. They are also, as a group, aggressively committed to the work they do. CPCS is very careful in their hiring to avoid individuals (and big firm civil litigator experience often triggers alarms) who are looking to gain some trial experience on the backs of indigent clients. One of the most important qualities they seek is commitment to public service.
There’s also a presumption that private counsel means better representation than appointed counsel because many people accept the adage that “you get what you pay for”. I would argue that appointed counsel means the best representation that your money cannot buy. Whether your counsel is appointed or retained, both will have the pressures of meeting the needs of other clients. However, public counsel, unlike their private brethren, are freed of the pressures and demands of meeting overhead and bringing in the next fee, the next retainer and the next client. Typically, private attorneys carry case loads equal to or greater than those of public counsel.
As for the split on the sentence (15 committed, 15 suspended), I too wish that the balance had been tipped so that he was spending longer incarcerated. Within the judicial system there needs to be some incentive for individuals to plead guilty to avoid trials, and that incentive is provided by a reduction of the amount of time of incarceration (i.e. where is the incentive to plead if the sentence is going to be exactly the same after you go to trial?) As for the suspended sentence, if Hoffman does anything whatsoever to cause his probation to be revoked (and that could even include just showing up late to meet with his probation officer) then he will be required to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Lisap, I of course accept your points — particularly where you talk about the skill-set of appointed council. I have no basis to disagree other than when I view court proceedings, I see the indigent accused getting the lawyer in the room that isn’t holding a case. A wealthy individual may also hire someone that isn’t holding a case, but the smart ones look for experience in the exact matter that is at hand, in fact there may be multiple lawyers hired based on specific experience.
I also agree on getting a discount on guilty pleas — a 50% discount seems, from my outside view, quite generous. However if you’re saying that the trigger doesn’t need to be another legal infraction — it could be non-cooperation, that is reassuring.
Sorry that I insulted appointed council based on assumptions Thank you
No worries, Hoss 😉
By the way, “plead” is not the past tense of “plead.” The word is “pled.” Or “pleaded.” While not the most important issue in the news, this has been driving me up a wall all week. One hundred lashes with a wet noodle to everyone who cannot tell the difference. And, yes, I joined the Facebook page “I correct you’re bad grammar in my head while you are speaking.” (The title contains an intentional irony.)
Ted — I think we should fix that. While you’re at it — if someone hung up their coat, then why if we find his body next to it do we say he “hanged” himself?