Com. v. Shabazz, J.
Com. v. Shabazz, J. No. 2381 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 19, 2017Background
- Shortly after midnight on Nov. 25, 2015, Sgt. Daywalt observed Jameel Shabazz’s SUV cross the double-yellow lines five times and the fog line twice on Swamp Pike; he stopped the vehicle.
- On contact, Shabazz admitted his driver’s license was suspended for failure to respond to a violation; the officer verified the suspension in his patrol vehicle.
- The Commonwealth introduced a faxed copy of Shabazz’s driving record, which included a certification signed by the Secretary of Transportation and the word “SEAL,” but no actual seal imprint.
- Shabazz objected to admission of the faxed driving record as uncertified hearsay and argued it also violated the Best Evidence Rule; he also challenged sufficiency of the evidence for notice of suspension.
- The trial court found Shabazz guilty of driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked (summary offense under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543) and imposed a $200 fine; Shabazz timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of faxed driving record | Commonwealth: public-record/business-record exceptions and rule 803/902 support admission; record is trustworthy | Shabazz: fax lacked the required attestation/seal under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6103 and so is inadmissible hearsay (and violates Best Evidence Rule) | Court: fax was not authenticated by the required official seal and did not satisfy Pa.R.E. 902(11); admission was erroneous but harmless because the officer’s testimony independently established suspension |
| Sufficiency of evidence for suspension element | Commonwealth: officer’s testimony plus record establish suspension beyond a reasonable doubt | Shabazz: Commonwealth failed to prove suspension/notice because record was uncertified and testimony alone was insufficient | Court: viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor, officer’s testimony that Shabazz admitted his license was suspended was sufficient to support conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Borovichka, 18 A.3d 1242 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for review of evidentiary rulings and abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Levanduski, 907 A.2d 3 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc) (judicial discretion parameters)
- Commonwealth v. Markman, 916 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (harmless-error standards for erroneously admitted evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Herb, 852 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2004) (admission that license was suspended can support conviction under § 1543)
- Commonwealth v. Fabian, 60 A.3d 146 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard for criminal convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 956 A.2d 1024 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bench-trial deference to factfinder equivalent to jury standard)
- Thorne v. DOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 727 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (purpose and operation of 42 Pa.C.S. § 6103 for admitting official records without custodian testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Ortega, 995 A.2d 879 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Commonwealth Court decisions as persuasive authority)