Opinion
No. 542, 2002.
Submitted: January 28, 2003.
Decided: April 7, 2003.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 0110015119
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
ANDRE T. HICKSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 542, 2002. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: January 28, 2003. Decided: April 7, 2003.
Before WALSH, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices.
Joseph T. Walsh, Justice:
ORDER
This 7th day of April 2003, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties it appears that:
(1) The appellant, Andre T. Hickson ("Hickson"), appeals from his conviction of felony theft following a jury trial in the Superior Court. He alleges a single claim of error: that the trial judge erred in denying his objection that the testimony of a police officer, relaying information he received by accessing the Delaware Criminal Justice Information System (DELJIS) did not qualify for admission as a public record hearsay exception under Delaware Rules of Evidence 803(8). We find no merit to this claim and accordingly affirm.
(2) At trial, the State presented the testimony of Officer Cassidy, of the Wilmington Police Department who observed a white Honda Accord traveling on Market Street on October 21, 2001. Because Honda Accords are frequently the subject of thefts, Cassidy decided to "run the tag" through DELJIS using the computer in his patrol car. The computer check revealed that the tag on the Honda was assigned to a 2001 Mazda registered in Hickson's name. Although the officer was not able to stop Hickson at that time, later in the day he saw the Honda again. On this occasion, Hickson abandoned the vehicle but was apprehended after a police chase.
(3) During Officer Cassidy's testimony the defense objected to his recital of the information received from DELJIS. The defense contended that the DELJIS transmission could not be introduced as a business record without the supporting testimony of the "records custodian." The trial judge overruled the objection ruling that "the officer is testifying to public agency data regularly prepared."
(4) D.R.E. 803(8) provides a hearsay exception for "records, reports, statements, or data compilation in any form" of a public agency recording "activities or matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law." DELJIS is a State agency charged, inter alia, with maintaining "an accurate and efficient criminal justice information system" to meet the needs "of criminal justice agencies" of the State "or any political subdivision thereof." 11 Del. C. § 8601, 8602(3)(4). Data reflecting the registration of all motor vehicles in the State is required to be maintained by the Division of Motor Vehicles of the Department of Public Safety pursuant to its duty to require such registration. 21 Del. C. § 2101. Read in tandem, these statutes reflect a State-imposed duty to record motor vehicle registrations and the authorization to make such information available to law enforcement agencies. Accordingly, the disputed element of D.R.E. 803(8) — that of a public record maintained by legal requirement — is satisfied.
(5) Indeed, a foundation for admissibility "may at times be predicated on judicial notice" where the record is "replete with circumstances demonstrating the trustworthiness of the documents." Cf. United States v. Johnson, 971 F.2d 562, 571 (10th Cir. 1992) (construing F.R.E. 803(6), the so-called "Business Records" exception to the hearsay rule). Moreover, police officers routinely use the DELJIS system in order to ascertain publicly stored information concerning motor vehicles, and the routine use of this public system renders it sufficiently trustworthy. Cf. Bruce v. State, 781 A.2d 544, 553 n. 32 (Del. 2001) (noting that National Law Enforcement Teletyping System reports did not fall within the public records exception because they were prepared by a private organization). Thus, the Superior Court was correct in ruling that the information Officer Cassidy assessed through DELJIS qualified for admission under D.R.E. 803(8).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.