The Massachusetts Appeals Court decided a case, Commonwealth v. Junior Martinez-Guzman which stated in a footnote that Registry of Motor Vehicle documents are admissible as business records without live testimony. The case involved a prosecution of a defendant for driving with a suspended license for OUI while committing another OUI offense, referred to in the court as OAS for OUI. The issue in the case was how the Commonwealth was required to prove that the defendant's license was suspended for OUI. The Commonwealth offered into evidence an attested copy of the defendant's driving record from the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
At trial, the defendant objected to the admission of the RMV documents claiming that the RMV signature was not properly attested. On appeal, the defendant raised for the first time the confrontation clause issue under Melendez-Diaz, arguing that the Registry documents were inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause because the defendant was deprived of his right to confront and cross examine any witness from the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
The court in a footnote, held that the issue was waived for appeal, but then addressed the issue, rejecting the argument that Registry documents require live testimony. The court held that RMV documents are not prepared in anticipation of litigation and qualify as business records.
It is unfortunate that the court addressed this issue in this case without it being properly raised in the lower court. Given that the issue was not properly raised in the lower court, this issue of the admissibility of Registry of Motor Vehicle documents as well as proof of prior convictions without live testimony should be raised in all cases.
Massachusetts OUI lawyers are likely to raise 6th Amendment confrontation defenses under Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts when the Commonwealth attempts to offer prior convictions to prove a second or subsequent offense DUI.
