COMMONWEALTH v. MONTEIRO (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license due to his prior conviction of operating under the influence of alcohol (OUI). The defendant claims, and the Commonwealth concedes, that the conviction must be vacated because the trial judge improperly allowed irrelevant and prejudicial evidence. We agree and reverse.

Specifically, the defendant claims that the admission of a certified docket and his entire certified records from the Registry of Motor Vehicles was improper because they contained information, such as additional arrests and charges, which were irrelevant and prejudicial. Because defense counsel timely objected, we review for prejudice. See Commonwealth v. Deramo, 436 Mass. 40, 49 (2002).

A portion of the defendant's certified records, i.e., the notices of the suspension and the defendant's prior OUI conviction, were relevant and admissible to prove the elements of the offense for which he was charged.² However, the records also included irrelevant charges, such as negligent operation and alcohol and drug offenses, despite these charges having been dismissed. The records also included the defendant's complete driving history, almost entirely unredacted, spanning back to 2012. Despite the evidence of the defendant's guilt,³ when considering the impact and prejudice these inadmissible documents had on the fairness of the defendant's trial, the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. See Commonwealth v. Hanson, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 233, 234 (2011).

Judgment reversed.

Verdict set aside.

FOOTNOTES

2.   “To prove the crime of operating a motor vehicle after revocation or suspension of license for operating while under the influence of alcohol,” the Commonwealth must prove “(1) that the defendant operated a motor vehicle; (2) that at the time of that operation the defendant's license was revoked or suspended; (3) that the license suspension or revocation was pursuant to a violation of one of the specified statutory sections (including operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24 [1] [a] ); and (4) that the defendant was notified that his license had been suspended or revoked.” Deramo, 436 Mass. at 50.

3.   After the defendant was stopped for speeding, he told the officer that his license “may be revoked due to a recent OUI charge.” The Commonwealth entered in evidence documents showing notices mailed to the defendant informing him of his license suspension, as well as a certified docket of the defendant's prior OUI conviction.