 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Blake9/17/2001
Plymouth.
June 8, 2001.
Motor Vehicle, License to operate, Operating under the influence. Evidence, Hearsay. Error, Harmless. Practice, Criminal , Bifurcated trial, Redaction.
Complaint received and sworn to in the Plymouth Division of the District Court Department on August 13, 1997.
On transfer to the Wareham Division, the case was tried before James M. Quinn, J.
The defendant was convicted of violating G.áL. c. 90, 23, second par., by operating a motor vehicle after his license to operate had been revoked pursuant to a violation of G. L. c. 90, á24, operating under the influence of liquor (OUI). He appeals, claiming that (1) the trial should have been bifurcated; (2) the notices sent to him from the Registry of Motor Vehicles (registry) informing him that his license had been revoked were inadmissible hearsay, or, in the alternative, should have been redacted prior to their being introduced in evidence; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. While we agree that the extraneous entries contained in the notices should have been redacted, we find the error harmless and affirm for the reasons set forth below.
1. Facts.
On July 31, 1997, Hanson police Officer Paul O'Brien pulled over a car driven by the defendant. Officer O'Brien ran a check on the defendant's license and found that it had been revoked. Officer O'Brien did not arrest the defendant at that time because there were four children and a passenger with a valid driver's license in the car. Instead, Officer O'Brien cited the defendant under G. L. c. 90, á23.
The defendant told Officer O'Brien that his current address was 161 Winter Street, Hanson, even though the address printed on the license stated 750 Nantasket Avenue, Hull. Officer O'Brien wrote the citation using the 750 Nantasket Avenue address as there was no change of address sticker on the defendant's license.
2. Redaction.
At trial, the Commonwealth introduced certified copies of three registry notices addressed to the defendant at 161 Winter Street, Hanson, informing him that his right to operate a motor vehicle had been revoked. The notices were dated July 1, 2, and 3, 1997. The notices showed that the defendant had been convicted of "DWI Liquor" a number of times from 1990 till 1995. The notices also showed that the defendant had been convicted of driving to endanger, having no liability insurance policy, and leaving the scene of an accident after causing property damage. The trial judge admitted the notices over the defendant's objection and denied the defendant's request to redact the information about the prior offenses other than "DWI-Liquor."
The defendant argues that the notices were inadmissible because they contained highly prejudicial and irrelevant information, and "exposed the jury to extensive bad acts evidence suggesting that [the defendant] had propensity to commit driving violations." The defendant contends that the notices diverted the jury from the "question of the defendant's guilt to the question of the defendant's bad character." Commonwealth v. Maguire, 392 Mass. 466, 469 (1984).
The notices were indeed admissible under G. L. c. 90, á30, "to prove the facts contained therein." While impermissible to
demonstrate bad character, the notices were admissible to prove that the defendant had notice that his driver's license had been revoked, and that the reason for the revocation was for driving under the influence , "essential element of the offense with which he was charged." Commonwealth v. Parzyck, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 655, 657 (1998).
"While the better practice
Page 1 2 3 Massachusetts DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|