 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Clites4/2/1991
l of that state department was reprinted on the letterhead. The certification was signed by a purported deputy of that department, and a slight impression of a seal (although we can not tell whose seal or by whom it was made) was also present.
The officer testified that he submitted appellant's pertinent information to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. The testimony further established a chain of custody of the documents he received in the mail in response to his request for appellant's driving record. However, the evidence is insufficient to authenticate the documents by extrinsic evidence, as it lacks evidence similar to that lacking in Utt, supra.
"For example, the calibrating officer could have testified as to the copies' authenticity under Evid.R. 901(B)(1). However, the arresting officer could not testify to this as it was not a matter within his knowledge. He may have known of the log book, who was in charge of it, and what the test forms looked like, but he could not state whether the documents before the trial court were copies of the relevant log entries, unless he was present when the copies were made." (Emphasis sic.) Id. at 6.
In the instant case, the extrinsic evidence may sufficiently demonstrate that the documents came from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, but it can not verify that the proper records were copied by the bureau. In the absence of such authenticating extrinsic evidence, it constituted prejudicial error by the trial court to admit the document into evidence based on an unintelligible, or otherwise illegible seal. Therefore, the decision of the trial court is herebsreversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Judgment accordingly.
FORD, P.J., concurs.
CHRISTLEY, J., dissents.
CHRISTLEY, Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Here, although the seal was partially illegible, there were sufficient indicia for the trial court to determine that a seal had been attempted, and that the document was, therefore, self-authenticating under Evid.R. 902(4). Further, there was no argument or evidence offered indicating forgery or inaccuracy of the purported record.
I would, therefore, affirm.
|