Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals, in Commonwealth v. McMullin, held that the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation as set forth in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts did not preclude the Commonwealth from offering Registry of Motor Vehicle records to prove the number of prior offenses at a 4th Offense Massachusetts OUI trial. The court held that Melendez-Diaz explicitly recognized that admission of court records and RMV records would not be testimonial. Accordingly, the Commonwealth would not have to offer the testimony of a live witness to testify regarding the content of court records.

In two cases, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts and Crawford v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court held that the confrontation clause precludes the Government from presenting testimonial evidence without providing the defendant the opportunity for cross examination. Melendez-Diaz applied the confrontation analysis set forth in Crawford to drug certificates by labs that were used by prosecutors to prove that a substance was an illegal drug. Prior to Melendez-Diaz, a prosecutor would prove that a substance was a drug by offering the lab certificate into evidence without presenting live testimony. The United States Supreme Court struck down this practice holding that the drug certificate was the equivalent of testimony against the defendant without providing the defendant with the opportunity for cross examination.

Following Melendez-Diaz, the issue arose as to how far the decision would extend. The Massachusetts Appeals Court held in McMullin that RMV records and court records are not the equivalent of testimony offered to prove a fact at trial. Accordingly, the court allowed the records into evidence.

Additionally, the court made another significant ruling for DUI lawyers in Massachusetts. The court held that to prove a prior offense the Commonwealth does not have to prove that the defendant did not have counsel or did not validly waive counsel, but that it is the defendant's burden to show lack of counsel and lack of a valid waiver of counsel.