George E. Boone, a/k/a George Edward Boone, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 63 Va. App. 383

On January 31, 2012, Trooper Robinson stopped George E. Boone at an I-95 checkpoint after Boone pulled onto the shoulder; Boone admitted his license was suspended and gave his SSN.
Trooper accessed Boone’s DMV driving transcript (printed Feb. 2, 2012), which showed Boone’s license status: “REVOKED HABITUAL OFFENDER,” and noted habitual-offender adjudications in 1998 and multiple convictions for driving while a habitual offender.
Boone was indicted for operating a motor vehicle after being declared a habitual offender (Code § 46.2-357); bench trial with Trooper Robinson as the only witness.
Commonwealth introduced the DMV transcript and multiple certified conviction orders (Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2) showing prior convictions for driving as a habitual offender; Boone objected to the transcript on Confrontation Clause grounds.
Trial court overruled objections, denied Boone’s motion to strike, and convicted him; Boone appealed arguing (1) DMV transcript admission violated the Sixth Amendment and (2) evidence was insufficient to prove he had been adjudicated a habitual offender.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the DMV transcript admitted at trial was testimonial (Confrontation Clause)	Commonwealth: transcript is an official DMV/public record, non-testimonial business/public record admissible without violating Confrontation Clause	Boone: transcript is testimonial hearsay substituting for the habitual-offender adjudication and violates his right to confront witnesses	Transcript is non-testimonial; admission did not violate Confrontation Clause (adopting Jasper/Michels analysis and Melendez-Diaz distinction)
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Boone had been adjudicated a habitual offender	Commonwealth: combination of DMV transcript and certified conviction orders sufficiently proved habitual-offender status and notice	Boone: Commonwealth failed to introduce a certified copy of the original habitual-offender adjudicating order, so proof was insufficient	Evidence was sufficient: DMV transcript + prior conviction orders established adjudication and revocation; no circuit-court restoration shown

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause requires witness unavailability and prior opportunity to cross-examine testimonial statements)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (analyst certificates created for trial are testimonial; public/business records created for administration generally are not)
Jasper v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 749 (Va. Ct. App. 2007) (DMV transcript is non-testimonial)
Michels v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 461 (Va. Ct. App. 2006) (official out-of-state records prepared in non-adversarial setting are non-testimonial)
Norman v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 539 (habitual-offender status continues until court restores privilege)
Varga v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 547 (process for restoration of driving privileges after habitual-offender adjudication)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)