May it please the court: Scott Martin argued that Mr. Hall expressly refused both a blood draw and release of his medical records, and that converting hospital plasma values into a blood alcohol concentration for prosecution raises statutory and constitutional concerns. Martin told the panel the case differs from Gannett because Hall “adamantly refused” the blood draw and declined to sign a release, and that several line cases (Zucchino, Cappellucci, Moreau, Bohigian) show the legislature intended strict consent protections in simple OUI cases.

The panel pressed Martin on two related points: whether the blood was drawn as part of medical treatment and thus within ordinary-course medical records, and whether the post hoc conversion of plasma values into a BAC is a “test or analysis” that requires different treatment under the statute. One justice asked whether Martin was arguing the draw was not for treatment or whether the key distinction was the defendant’s nonconsent; Martin acknowledged the hospital recorded the sample as for treatment but maintained the defendant’s refusal to consent to release of records matters under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, §24(1)(a)–(e).

Judges also raised a procedural question about the appeal: whether this is a proper conditional plea appeal under the rules. The panel asked what remedy the court should order if it finds the plea was improper — vacate the plea and remand, or decide the merits despite potential procedural defects. Martin urged the court to decide the substantive issue, saying the question is likely to recur and was properly preserved in the trial court. Commonwealth counsel acknowledged uncertainty about the jurisdictional statute and warned that vacating the plea could lead to a retrial that the Commonwealth might not pursue given the defendant’s sentence already served.

Why it matters: The panel’s answer will shape whether prosecutors can rely on hospital-created lab values and converted BAC estimates where a patient refused consent, and it signals how appeals courts will reconcile recent SJC precedent with consent provisions that limit police use of medical information.

Next steps: The case was submitted for decision following argument.