Opinion
11-P-2100
12-26-2012
COMMONWEALTH v. MATEO J. BEBA.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant, Mateo J. Beba, appeals from a conviction following a jury-waived trial on operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI). The defendant challenges the admission of the Registry of Motor Vehicles certificate of registration (registration certificate), alleging that its admission violated his confrontation rights and that he did not see it until the day of trial. The admission of the registration certificate did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights because it was not created for use at a later criminal trial. Commonwealth v. Parenteau, 460 Mass. 1, 10 (2011). It was admissible as a business record. G. L. c. 90, § 30. The defendant has made no showing that he was prejudiced by the delay in disclosure of the registration certificate. See the reasons and authorities in the Commonwealth's brief at pages ten through fifteen. The defendant also argues that the evidence was insufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he operated the motor vehicle or that he was impaired. With regard to the element of operation, we are not presented with the problem of an uncorroborated confession, as in Commonwealth v. Forde, 392 Mass. 453, 458 (1984), or Commonwealth v. Leonard, 401 Mass. 470, 472 (1988). Here, there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, for a rational trier of fact to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant operated the motor vehicle. See the reasons and authorities cited in the Commonwealth's brief at pages twenty-two through twenty-four. With regard to the element of impairment, the evidence was also sufficient, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, for a rational trier of fact to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was impaired by alcohol while operating a motor vehicle. See the recitation of the evidence in the Commonwealth's brief at pages twenty-six through twenty-seven and the arguments and authorities cited therein.
The defendant was also convicted of carrying a loaded firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, but does not seek relief from that conviction.
As explained at pages eighteen to twenty-one of the Commonwealth's brief, the information contained in the registration certificate was based on records made long before the incident giving rise to the defendant's arrest and prosecution. The production of those records in certified form for purposes of trial does not make the certificate testimonial. See Commonwealth v. Weeks, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5-7 (2010).
We conclude there is no error; therefore, we need not determine whether the defendant objected properly.
--------
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Cypher, Green & Hanlon, JJ.),