 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall v. Commonwealth4/18/2000
y. Id.
Hall contends that the DMV confirmation of insurance form is not a public record.
"'Public Records' means, but is not limited to, all written books, papers, letters, documents, photographs, tapes, microfiche, microfilm, photostats, sound recordings, maps, other documentary materials or information in any recording medium regardless of physical form or characteristics, including electronically recorded data, made or received in pursuance of law or in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency or employee of state government or its political subdivisions." Reid v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 468, 470, 431 S.E.2d 63, 64 (1993) (citation omitted).
The DMV form was a public record. It was completed in part by Officer Judkins and was used by the police and the DMV, as agents of the Commonwealth, to ascertain whether the vehicle was properly insured as required by state law. Officer Judkins kept a duplicate original for a governmental and public purpose. The fact that Hall failed to have the form fully completed and returned to the DMV does not alter the form's character as a public record. See Reid, 16 Va. App. at 471, 431 S.E.2d at 64-65 (fingerprint card completed by police and signed by appellant was a forged public document under Code § 18.2-168).
III. Intent to Defraud
Hall contends that the Commonwealth did not prove that he acted with the intent to defraud. He argues that the misinformation was simply a misunderstanding, that he never supplied Officer Judkins with his half-brother's birth date, social security number, or address. He argues further that he simply did not pay enough attention to the form and so did not correct the error. Finally, he argues that the name he signed, "Teddy Hall," is a name that he frequently uses and by which he is commonly known.
"Intent is the purpose formed in a person's mind which may, and often must, be inferred from the facts and circumstances in a particular case." Ridley v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 834, 836, 252 S.E.2d 313, 314 (1979). Whether or not Hall supplied the erroneous information to Officer Judkins was a matter of credibility for the trial court. The trial court believed that he did. " he credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented." Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995). Further, the trial court was not required to believe Hall's explanation as to why he did not correct the misinformation. "In its role of judging witness credibility, the fact finder is entitled to disbelieve the self-serving testimony of the accused and to conclude that the accused is lying to conceal his guilt." Marable v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 505, 509-10, 500 S.E.2d 233, 235 (1998).
Hall argues that he is known as "Teddy" and that by signing the confirmation of liability insurance form, "Teddy Hall," he signed a name by which he is frequently and commonly known and thus provided no false information. However, this signature tied directly into the false identity given by him to Officer Judkins and was thus a ratification and statement of the false information on the form.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 Virginia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|