From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ssekiranda v. Cambridge Police Dep't.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Apr 2, 2012
11-P-1232 (Mass. Apr. 2, 2012)

Opinion

11-P-1232

04-02-2012

RICHARD SSEKIRANDA v. CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.


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

Richard Ssekiranda appeals from a decision of the Northern District of the Appellate Division of the District Court Department affirming a finding of responsibility for a civil motor vehicle infraction by a judge of the Cambridge District Court. We affirm.

Background. On October 17, 2010, Richard Ssekiranda, a cab driver, was operating his cab on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge. After Officer Tierney of the Cambridge police department observed Ssekiranda fail to stop for a red light, Officer Tierney stopped Ssekiranda and issued him a citation. After a hearing, a magistrate found him responsible. Ssekiranda appealed to the Cambridge District Court, and a hearing was held on April 21, 2011. Officer Tierney and Ssekiranda both testified at the hearing. They had differing recollections of the events of October 17, 2010. After Ssekiranda told the judge that his driving record was 'as clean as a whistle,' the judge asked Officer Tierney if he had checked Ssekiranda's driving history. Officer Tierney produced a document for the judge. There was no objection raised by defense counsel as the judge reviewed the record. The judge then found Ssekiranda responsible.

The record is unclear as to what was produced, however a fair reading of the transcript leads to the inescapable conclusion that the officer produced Ssekiranda's driving record as maintained by the Registry of Motor Vehicles.

Discussion. Ssekirand claims that the judge abused her discretion in relying on the document produced by Tierney because the document was never made available to Ssekiranda. Ssekiranda argues that the document was never admitted into evidence or authenticated, and that he was deprived of the opportunity to respond to it.

Ssekiranda's assertions are without merit. Under the Uniform Rule on Civil Motor Vehicle Infraction (b)(1)(1986), '[t]he rules of evidence shall not apply' to hearings on civil motor vehicle infractions. The rule further provides that '[a] party shall not be denied the opportunity to present relevant evidence or cross-examine witnesses,' and counsel for Ssekiranda thoroughly cross-examined Officer Tierney. The trial involved a determination of credibility, and the judge made her decision after hearing the testimony of Officer Tierney and Ssekiranda. Nothing in the transcript compels the conclusion that the judge relied exclusively upon Ssekiranda's driving record in finding Ssekiranda responsible, and we agree with the Northern District of the Appellate Division of the District Court Department that '[t]he assessment of the weight and credibility of that conflicting testimonial evidence was for the trial court's determination.'

Ssekiranda does not claim that he was denied the opportunity to present relevant evidence, and neither he nor his attorney requested a copy of the document reviewed by the judge. If our inference is correct (that the document was Ssekiranda's official driving record) and if Ssekiranda or his attorney had requested to review the document and the opportunity to respond to it, then we would require the judge to accommodate those requests for at least two reasons. The first would be respect for the cited provision of the Uniform Rule supporting a party's 'opportunity to present relevant evidence or cross-examine witnesses.' The second would be a policy of fundamental fairness in the circumstances.
--------

Decision and order of Appellate Division affirmed.

By the Court (Sikora, Carhart & Sullivan, JJ.),


Summaries of

Ssekiranda v. Cambridge Police Dep't.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Apr 2, 2012
11-P-1232 (Mass. Apr. 2, 2012)
Case details for

Ssekiranda v. Cambridge Police Dep't.

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD SSEKIRANDA v. CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Court:COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT

Date published: Apr 2, 2012

Citations

11-P-1232 (Mass. Apr. 2, 2012)