From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Winfield

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Jun 19, 2012
969 N.E.2d 185 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)

Opinion

No. 11–P–213.

2012-06-19

COMMONWEALTH v. Marie Y. WINFIELD.


By the Court (GRAHAM, GRAINGER & HANLON, JJ.).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The defendant appeals after a jury found her guilty of reckless operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle after her license had been suspended. During the trial, the Commonwealth offered a ten-page document from the registry of motor vehicles (registry), purported to contain the defendant's driving record. Included in the document was a certification from the registrar of motor vehicles that the record contained a copy of a notice of suspension that had been mailed to the defendant. The document was offered to prove that the defendant had notice that her license had been suspended; however, most of the rest of the defendant's driving record was also admitted.

Some items relating to matters that occurred after the underlying incident in this case were redacted from the trial exhibit. However, the exhibit that the jury received contained, inter alia, a notice that the defendant's license would be revoked for an indefinite period for “IMMED THREAT–MEDICAL”; notices that the defendant's motor vehicle registration would be revoked because her liability insurance had been cancelled; a notice that her license would be suspended because of four surchargeable accidents that occurred between September 22, 2005, and September 9, 2008; a notice of a fine default and a returned check; and a list of “all offenses and actions” that included a speeding charge and “minor traffic” violations dating back to 1982.

This case was tried before the Supreme Judicial Court decided, in Commonwealth v. Parenteau, 460 Mass. 1, 9 (2011), that “admission [of the certificate] at trial in the absence of testimony from a registry witness violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.” See also Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 320–322 (2009). The Commonwealth now concedes, and we agree, that the certificate was wrongly admitted and the conviction of operating a motor vehicle after a license suspension must be reversed. While the registry record was offered only to prove notice of the license suspension, the defendant argues on appeal, as she did to the trial judge, that its admission was unfairly prejudicial on the reckless operation charge. We agree. All of the information contained in the registry record was irrelevant, with the exception of the certification that the notice of license suspension had been mailed to the defendant, already discussed; the Commonwealth does not argue that the remaining part of the record was admissible on any issue. The question for the jury was whether the defendant was driving recklessly; in that regard, we cannot say with any certainty that her nearly thirty-year driving history, replete as it was with allegations of motor vehicle infractions and accidents, had but slight effect. See Commonwealth v. Peruzzi, 15 Mass.App.Ct. 437, 445 (1983). (“[I]f one cannot say, with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error, it is impossible to conclude that substantial rights were not affected.”) As a result, the conviction on the charge of reckless operation of a motor vehicle must be reversed as well.

Judgments reversed.

Verdicts set aside.




Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Winfield

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Jun 19, 2012
969 N.E.2d 185 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Winfield

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH v. Marie Y. WINFIELD.

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Date published: Jun 19, 2012

Citations

969 N.E.2d 185 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)
82 Mass. App. Ct. 1102