Opinion
No. 15–P–450.
07-26-2016
COMMONWEALTH v. William SAINTCOME.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Following a jury trial in District Court, the defendant, William Saintcome, was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 23. The defendant claims that testimony concerning a Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) record violated his confrontation clause rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the judge erred in denying his motion for a required finding of not guilty. We affirm.
Background. The jury could have found the following facts. On November 2, 2012, after hearing a loud crash outside his home, James Winnett observed that the defendant had struck Winnett's garage with a sport utility vehicle (SUV). The defendant backed the SUV away from the garage, but was unable to stop it, and the SUV rolled down a nearby hill and struck a tree. Winnett reported the accident, and Malden police Officer Michael Luongo arrived at the scene a short time later. When Officer Luongo arrived, the defendant approached the officer, identified himself as the driver of the SUV, and provided his license and registration. Officer Luongo entered the defendant's information into his patrol car's computer terminal system, which could access RMV records, and found that the defendant's license was suspended. Then, Officer Luongo asked the defendant if he knew that his license was suspended. The defendant acknowledged that he knew his license was suspended.
At trial Officer Luongo was shown an RMV record, and he testified that he recognized the record as a “certification from the registry for license status request,” indicating that it was a notification from the RMV of a license suspension or reinstatement. Officer Luongo testified that such records pertain to a particular license number and that the license number in the record corresponds to a particular individual. He was not, however, allowed to testify that the record was related to this particular defendant as the judge sustained defense counsel's objection and excluded such evidence. The RMV record was therefore not admitted in evidence.
Discussion. The defendant claims that Officer Luongo's testimony describing the RMV record implicates the defendant's confrontation clause right under the Sixth Amendment. See Commonwealth v. Parenteau, 460 Mass. 1, 5 (2011). However, the RMV record was not admitted in evidence, and Officer Luongo's testimony only identified that the document was a particular type of RMV record regarding notice of license suspension or reinstatement and that it corresponded to an individual's license number. Unlike in Parenteau, the case upon which the defendant relies, there was no testimony that the record related to the defendant or that it established that the defendant received notice that his license was suspended. Contrast id. at 8–9 (registry certificate attesting to mailing of notice of license suspension to defendant, which was created for purposes of trial, was testimonial and improperly admitted without testimony from witness on behalf of RMV). Accordingly, the officer's general testimony regarding the RMV certification fails to raise the confrontation clause concerns discussed in Parenteau.
The defendant does not challenge Officer Luongo's testimony that he learned that the defendant's license was suspended by inputting the defendant's information into the patrol car's computer.
The defendant also claims that the judge erred in denying his motion for a required finding of not guilty because the Commonwealth failed to introduce a RMV certificate demonstrating that the defendant was given notice that his license was suspended. We review this claim under the familiar standard set forth in Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677–678 (1979). “To prove the crime of operating a motor vehicle after license revocation or suspension, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant operated a motor vehicle, (2) that at the time of operation the defendant's license had been revoked or suspended, and (3) that the defendant received notice that his license had been suspended or revoked.” Commonwealth v. Royal, 89 Mass.App.Ct. 168, 170 (2016), citing G.L. c. 90, § 23. As we have explained, no RMV certificate indicating notice of license suspension was introduced in evidence. Rather, actual notice was proved through the defendant's own admission. Officer Luongo testified that the defendant directly acknowledged that his license was suspended when he was asked at the scene of the accident. The defendant's admission was more than sufficient for the jury to conclude that he had received notice.
Judgment affirmed.