OUI Framingham Middlesex Distric Court Massachusetts Operating Motor Vehicle Suspended License Revoked Failure Identify Police Officer

OUI Framingham Middlesex Distric Court Massachusetts Operating Motor Vehicle Suspended License Revoked Failure Identify Police Officer

COMMONWEALTH vs. JUNIOR MARTINEZ-GUZMAN.

APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

76 Mass. App. Ct. 167

January 22, 2010, Decided

Issues:

Whether the stamped signature of the registrar of the Department of Motor Vehicles was an attestation sufficient to authenticate the Registry of Motor Vehicle (RMV) documents?

Whether the evidence introduced by the Commonwealth sufficient to support the conviction for OAS for OUI?

Whether the stamped signature of the registrar of the Department of Motor Vehicles was an attestation sufficient to authenticate the Registry of Motor Vehicle (RMV) documents?

The Court held that "the documents in this case bear the original stamped signature of the registrar, and thus properly were attested. Therefore, unlike in Deramo, there is no question here about "the accuracy or completeness of a copy that the official has never seen and that the official's agency did not produce." We also note that the court in Deramo did not elaborate on the requirements of the actual mark of attestation, other than to note that it must be a "written and signed certification that it is a correct copy." Rather, given the facts of the case, the court's analysis focused on the purpose and requirements of the substantive component of an attestation, not on the particulars of the signature, itself. Therefore, despite the court's use of the term "written" in describing an attestation, we rely on the long-standing principle set out in Finnegan that the act of signing may be accomplished "by print, by stamp, or by the hand of another," and the failure of the Legislature to specify in the language of the statute any type of signature required, in concluding that the use of a facsimile stamped signature meets the requirements of a proper attestation pursuant to 76.

Whether the evidence introduced by the Commonwealth sufficient to support the conviction for OAS for OUI?

The Court held that "the evidence was also sufficient to prove identification because the defendant gave an address that matched the RMV records and did not contradict the officer when he called the defendant by his correct name. The evidence at trial concerned what happened at the time the defendant was being booked and did not implicate the defendant's post-arrest silence. The Court further held that "the trial court judge did not commit error in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the OAS for OUI charge. The record shows that the defendant had notice, and the purposes of G. L. c. 90C, 2, were satisfied."

Conclusion: The judgment on the failure to identify conviction is affirmed. The conviction of OAS for OUI is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the District Court for sentencing on that conviction.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

POST COMMENT

An overview of Mercedes Benz what they can offer you Improving Your Credit Scores With A Subprime Car Loan Used Car Price Guide: Choose the Right One Childrens Audio Books --Wonderfully Effective Way to Help Your Child Improve Reading Comprehension Used Car Classified: Important Information Mazatlan Mexico Vacation Of A Lifetime! Rental Cars- A Proper way to maintain the reliability of buying an affordable car Rental Cars- Gives the ability to fly to a destination Mobility Executive Suites – Affordable and Flexible Short Term Office Addresses Get the best Price for my Wrecked Car ? International SIM Cards For Use At Home And Abroad Teaser Home Loans – road ahead? How do you think about unaffordable price of world of warcraft gold?