A registry certification document is not sufficient evidence to prove that a person was notified of a license suspension. The SJC ruling says that if the Commonwealth is to prove that the person received “notice” that their license was suspended, it cannot simply introduce a certified document from the RMV which says that the notice was sent out. That document is “testimonial” and therefore cannot be introduced without accompanying testimony.
As reported in the Globe, the ruling stems from a case of Operating After Suspension, License suspended for OUI. This is a serious charge as it comes with a mandatory-minimum jail sentence of at least 60 days. The defendant claimed that he was never notified by the registry that his license was revoked.
Up until this ruling, this documentation was completely standard in Operating on A Suspended License cases, known under Massachusetts statutes as Operation After Suspension (OAS). It wasn’t considered an evidentiary challenge to establish notification.
Citing the landmark case of Melendez-Diaz, the Court held that these documents are more than simple business records; they are testimonial evidence. The Melendez-Diaz case established that drug analysis records which state that a substance was scientifically proven to be an illegal controlled substance, required a forensic expert to explain and defend that determination. The prosecutors are not allowed to simply enter a piece of paper that says he had an illegal drug, since the defense can’t challenge a piece of paper, and that violates the defendants 6th amendment rights to “confront his accuser”, also known as the Confrontation Clause of the US Constitution.
In any case, this is a great ruling for anyone accused of driving on a suspended license, who doesn’t believe they were notified of their suspension. It remains to be seen how this decision may also effect similar registry documents, such as proof of prior OUI convictions.
—
More at massdui.com.
