Commonwealth v. Lee, 998 N.E.2d 768

Defendant's Massachusetts license was suspended in June 2009 for two years following a 2007 MA OUI and a 2008 NH OUI; suspension administration referenced the NH conviction as the basis.
In September 2009 defendant was stopped and charged under G. L. c. 90, § 23, third par. (operating after suspension for OUI-related suspensions), which carries higher mandatory penalties.
At the bench trial the Commonwealth introduced registry records (MA and NH) including attestations that notice of suspension was mailed; no registry witnesses testified. Defense objected under the Sixth Amendment / Melendez-Diaz.
Trial judge admitted the records, denied the defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty on the § 23, third par. element that suspension be based on an enumerated MA OUI, and sentenced defendant to 60 days (stayed pending appeal).
Appeals Court affirmed; Supreme Judicial Court considered two issues: (1) Confrontation Clause admissibility of registry attestations of mailed notice, and (2) whether the Commonwealth proved the § 23, third par. element that the suspension was based on a listed MA OUI (affecting applicable sentencing).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under the Sixth Amendment of registry records attesting mailing of suspension notice	Registry documents were admissible and defense objection was too vague to preserve the Parenteau/Melendez-Diaz confrontation claim	Admission of attestations of mailed notice without live registry testimony violated confrontation rights	Portions of registry records that attest to mailing of notice are testimonial and inadmissible without registry testimony; error was not harmless — new trial ordered
Sufficiency / correct statutory paragraph for conviction and sentencing under G. L. c. 90, § 23	Commonwealth argued suspension and punishment under § 23, third par. applied	Defendant argued suspension was based on an out‑of‑state (NH) OUI so § 23, third par. (MA‑OUI based) was not proven; sought application of § 23, first par. (lesser penalty)	Court held Commonwealth failed to prove the § 23, third par. requirement because suspension was based on the NH conviction; ambiguity resolved for defendant under the rule of lenity; conviction reversed and remanded

Commonwealth v. Parenteau, 460 Mass. 1 (Mass. 2011) (registry attestation of mailed notice prepared for trial is testimonial and triggers Confrontation Clause concerns)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic/certificates prepared for prosecution are testimonial requiring witness confrontation)
Commonwealth v. Deramo, 436 Mass. 40 (Mass. 2002) (elements the Commonwealth must prove for § 23 third paragraph offense)
Commonwealth v. Williamson, 462 Mass. 676 (Mass. 2012) (application of rule of lenity where statutory ambiguity exists)
Commonwealth v. Roucoulet, 413 Mass. 647 (Mass. 1992) (rule of lenity principles)