Case Title: Hickson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 542, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-04-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ANDRE T. HICKSON,
§
§
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§ No. 542, 2002
§
v.
§ Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware in and
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§ for New Castle County
§ Cr. ID No. 0110015119
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: January 28, 2003
Decided:
April 7, 2003
Before WALSH, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 7th day of April 2003, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties it
appears that:
(1)
The appellant, Andre T. Hickson (“Hickson”), appeals from his
conviction of felony theft following a jury trial in the Superior Court.  He alleges a
single claim of error: that the trial judge erred in denying his objection that the
testimony of a police officer, relaying information he received by accessing the
Delaware Criminal Justice Information System (DELJIS) did not qualify for
admission as a public record hearsay exception under Delaware Rules of Evidence
803(8).  We find no merit to this claim and accordingly affirm.
2
(2)
At trial, the State presented the testimony of Officer Cassidy, of the
Wilmington Police Department who observed a white Honda Accord traveling on
Market Street on October 21, 2001.  Because Honda Accords are frequently the
subject of thefts, Cassidy decided to “run the tag” through DELJIS using the
computer in his patrol car.  The computer check revealed that the tag on the Honda
was assigned to a 2001 Mazda registered in Hickson’s name.  Although the officer
was not able to stop Hickson at that time, later in the day he saw the Honda again.  On
this occasion, Hickson  abandoned the vehicle but was apprehended after a police
chase.
(3)
During Officer Cassidy’s testimony the defense objected to his recital of
the information received from DELJIS.  The defense contended that the DELJIS
transmission could not be introduced as a business record without the supporting
testimony of the “records custodian.”  The trial judge overruled the objection ruling
that “the officer is testifying to public agency data regularly prepared.”
(4)
D.R.E. 803(8) provides a hearsay exception for “records, reports,
statements, or data compilation in any form” of a public agency recording “activities
or matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law.”  DELJIS is a State agency
charged, inter alia, with maintaining “an accurate and efficient criminal justice
information system” to meet the needs “of criminal justice agencies” of the State “or
3
any political subdivision thereof.”  11 Del. C. § 8601, 8602(3)(4).  Data reflecting the
registration of all motor vehicles in the State is required to be maintained by the
Division of Motor Vehicles of the Department of Public Safety pursuant to its duty
to require such registration.  21 Del. C. § 2101.  Read in tandem, these statutes reflect
a State-imposed duty to record motor vehicle registrations and the authorization to
make such information available to law enforcement agencies.  Accordingly, the
disputed element of D.R.E. 803(8) – that of a public record maintained by legal
requirement – is satisfied.  
(5)
Indeed, a foundation for admissibility “may at times be predicated on
judicial notice” where the record is “replete with circumstances demonstrating the
trustworthiness of the documents.”  Cf. United States v. Johnson, 971 F.2d 562, 571
(10th Cir. 1992) (construing F.R.E. 803(6), the so-called “Business Records”
exception to the hearsay rule).  Moreover, police officers routinely use the DELJIS
system in order to ascertain publicly stored information concerning motor vehicles,
and the routine use of this public system renders it sufficiently trustworthy.  Cf. Bruce
v. State, 781 A.2d 544, 553 n. 32 (Del. 2001) (noting that National Law Enforcement
Teletyping System reports did not fall within the public records exception because
they were prepared by a private organization).  Thus, the Superior Court was correct
4
in ruling that the information Officer Cassidy assessed through DELJIS qualified for
admission under D.R.E. 803(8).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court be, and the same hereby is,
AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
   s/Joseph T. Walsh
         Justice