Opinion
Record No. 1469-93-4
Decided: February 14, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, Alfred D. Swersky, Judge
Richard C. Goemann, Senior Assistant Public Defender, on brief, for appellant.
G. Russell Stone, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Willis, Bray and Fitzpatrick
Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
On appeal from a bench trial conviction of driving on a suspended license in violation of Code Sec. 46.2-301, Brad Allen contends that his conviction should be reversed because the trial court erred by admitting into evidence his Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) driving record. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On March 25, 1993, Allen was stopped by Officer Farmar-Lee for failure to stop at a stop sign. Allen gave the officer his automobile registration, but not his operator's license.
At trial, the Commonwealth introduced into evidence a copy of Allen's DMV driving record. Allen conceded that the record was admissible to show that his license was suspended, but he objected, on hearsay grounds, to its admissibility to prove his prior convictions of driving on a suspended license, and that he was "notified by law enforcement" of the suspension of his license. The trial court overruled Allen's objection, holding that the DMV record was admissible under Code Sec. 46.2-215 and the official records exception to the hearsay rule to prove that Allen had notice that his license was suspended.
Allen contends that the Commonwealth did not lay a proper foundation to establish an "official document" exception to the hearsay rule. Citing Tickel v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 558, 400 S.E.2d 534 (1991), he argues that this exception requires that the facts admitted into evidence be within the personal knowledge of the recording official. Id. at 564, 400 S.E.2d at 542. He argues that his prior convictions were not within the personal knowledge of the Commissioner of DMV, but were reported to the commissioner by a third party. See Ingram v. Commonwealth, 1 Va. App. 335, 339, 338 S.E.2d 657, 659 (1986).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we find that Allen's DMV driving record was properly admitted, pursuant to Code Sec. 46.2-215 and the official documents exception to the hearsay rule, for the limited purpose of proving that Allen had notice of his suspension.
"It is a generally recognized rule that records and reports prepared by public officials pursuant to a duty imposed by statute, or required by the nature of their offices, are admissible as proof of the facts stated therein." Williams v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 45, 46, 189 S.E.2d 378, 379 (1972). In Ingram v. Commonwealth, 1 Va. App. 335, 338 S.E.2d 657 (1986), we held official DMV records were admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule "if the document 'relates facts or events within the personal knowledge and observation of the recording official to which he could testify should he be called as a witness.' " Id. at 339, 338 S.E.2d at 658.
In Smoot v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. App. ___, 445 S.E.2d 688 (1994), the appellant argued that the DMV computer printout was inadmissible under the "official documents" exception because the Commissioner of DMV did not have personal knowledge of the appellant's habitual offender adjudication. We rejected that argument and held: [t]he personal knowledge requirement of the official documents exception is satisfied by the statutory duties imposed on the Clerk of the Court to file with DMV a copy of the habitual offender order, and the duties imposed on the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles to maintain such orders as permanent records of DMV.
Id. at ___, 445 S.E.2d at 690.
The same logic controls this case. Code Sec. 46.2-382(1) requires the clerk of a trial court to forward an abstract of a motor vehicle violation conviction to the commissioner. It requires the commissioner to keep permanent records of that information. These statutory duties satisfy the personal knowledge requirement of the official documents exception to the hearsay rule. Therefore, Allen's DMV driving record was properly admitted into evidence by the trial court.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed.