Opinion
11-P-6
11-23-2011
COMMONWEALTH v. RONALD RAGUSA.
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 was convicted of operating under the influence of liquor, fourth or subsequent offense (OUI), in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1), and negligent operation of a motor vehicle, in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a). He appeals from his OUI conviction on the grounds that the certificate of breathalyzer equipment calibration by an analyst of the office of alcohol testing was inadmissible hearsay and testimonial, and so its admission violated his rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527, 2531-2532 (2009). This contention was squarely addressed and rejected by the Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Zeininger, 459 Mass. 775, 776, 785-789 (2011), decided after the defendant's brief was filed. We therefore affirm.
Judgments affirmed.
By the Court (Kafker, Trainor & Meade, JJ.)