Case Title: McDonald v. State, Dept. of Revenue and Taxation

Citation: 

Docket Number: 92-33

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1993-02-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
McDonald v. State, Dept. of Revenue and Taxation1993 WY 19846 P.2d 694Case Number: 92-33Decided: 02/05/1993Supreme Court of Wyoming

 

Douglas J. 
McDONALD,

Appellant 
(Petitioner),

v.

The STATE of 
Wyoming, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 
AND TAXATION,

Appellee 
(Respondent).

Appeal from District 
Court, Laramie 
County, Edward L. Grant, 
J.

Ronald G. 
Pretty, Cheyenne, for appellant.

Joseph B. Meyer, 
Atty. Gen., Michael L. Hubbard, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Lillian Nicholas Sharpe, 
Asst. Atty. Gen., for 
appellee.

Before MACY, C.J., and 
THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT* and GOLDEN, JJ.

* Chief Justice at time of 
conference; retired January 1, 
1993.

THOMAS, Justice.

[¶1]      The threshold 
question presented in this case is whether a driver's record, maintained in an 
electronic database, then reproduced on paper in the form of an abstract and 
certified by the custodian as such, is admissible in an administrative 
proceeding to revoke a driver's license as a record kept in the usual course of 
business for purposes of the business records exception to the hearsay rule, or 
as a public record for purposes of the public records exception to the hearsay 
rule. A related and tandem question is the justification for installing a record 
from another jurisdiction into the electronic database. Finally, there is an 
issue with respect to the foundation that must be presented in order to admit 
the record into evidence in an administrative or court proceeding. The 
administrative hearing examiner admitted the document into evidence, and that 
decision was affirmed by the district court. We affirm the order of the district 
court affirming the order of the hearing examiner that suspended the driver's 
license of Douglas J. McDonald (McDonald).

[¶2]      McDonald did not 
set forth a separate statement of the issues in his brief as required by 
Wyo.R.App.P. 5.01, but we glean his position from the text of his brief. The 
essence of his claim is the admissibility of his driver's record at the 
administrative hearing. He contends that its admission resulted in denying him a 
fair hearing and due process of law because his driving privilege was suspended 
on the basis of a computer printout from the Department of Motor Vehicles. 
McDonald contends that the computer printout is not sufficient to justify the 
decision of the hearing officer because it lacks the required indicia of 
reliability; was not established to be a regularly kept "business" record; and 
McDonald had no avenue for testing its validity, since the hearing officer did 
not require foundation or authentication of the computer record. As appellee, 
the State of Wyoming states these to be the 
issues:

I. Was appellant's 
computer printed driver record properly admitted into evidence?

II. Does the record 
contain substantial evidence to support the suspension of appellant's driver's 
license?

[¶3]      McDonald was 
convicted of driving while under the influence1 in 
Cheyenne on November 16, 
1987. On September 13, 1990, 
McDonald was convicted of driving while under the influence in the state of 
Oregon.2 On March 14, 1991, a notice was directed to McDonald 
informing him that his "Wyoming driving privilege and/or any license evidencing 
such privilege will be suspended * * * starting from April 12, 1991 up to and 
including April 10, 1992." This notice was issued pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 
31-7-128 (1989), which provides for a mandatory one-year suspension of a 
driver's license for a second offense of driving while under the influence 
within a five-year time frame. The notice informed McDonald that he had a right 
to a hearing before the suspension became effective, and McDonald requested a 
hearing within the time allowed for him to do so. The hearing was set for 
May 10, 
1991.

[¶4]      After calling the 
hearing to order, the hearing officer briefly described the purpose of the 
hearing. At that point, McDonald's attorney moved "to strike from the record and 
from your consideration anything dealing with alleged or suspension, which is 
what this Court is, this Hearing Examiner is attempting to suspend on." 
Apparently, counsel was alluding to the driver record information, a copy of 
which is attached as Appendix A. The hearing examiner acknowledged the objection 
by counsel and continued with these statements:

At least the State has 
proposed the one-year suspension based on a conviction from an out-of-state 
court in addition to the one-year suspension they notified you of the 
requirement to file proof of insurance for three years. The file that the State 
has submitted consisted of the following documents: Notice of Hearing, Hearing 
Examiner's Worksheet, Counsel's letter requesting a hearing, Letter of April 12 
granting a hearing on the driving under the influence suspension and the 
suspension certification of record, dated April 19, '91, signed by Larry Pitmon, 
Supervisor, copy to the Wyoming Driver Record Information for Douglas John 
McDonald date of birth 3-12-47 which reflects a driving while under the 
influence, offense November 14, '87, conviction November 16, '87, * * * and 
driving under the influence, offense 9-12-90, convicted 9-13-90 and the proposed 
suspension action.

[¶5]      Counsel 
representing McDonald made an additional articulation of his objection to the 
hearing officer's reliance on the abstract of McDonald's driving record, which 
also revealed several other offenses, contending that McDonald had been denied 
the opportunity to confront the witnesses against him. Counsel also argued that 
the suspension statute was penal rather than civil in nature and, in order to 
sustain McDonald's "conviction," there needed to be more in the record than a 
mere statement that McDonald was convicted of driving under the influence in 
Oregon. Counsel stated, "[t]hey 
have to present something to you to back up the fact that there was a conviction 
in Oregon."

[¶6]      By an order dated 
May 22, 
1991, the hearing officer 
proceeded to impose the suspension authorized and required by Wyo. Stat. §§ 
31-7-125 and -128 (1989). On June 
14, 1991, McDonald filed a 
petition for review in the district court. See 
Wyo. R.App.P. 12. Counsel 
stipulated that McDonald would be permitted to drive while his appeal was 
pending, and the district court so ordered. On December 20, 
1991, the district court 
entered its order affirming the order of suspension issued by the hearing 
examiner. McDonald then filed his notice of appeal, seeking further review of 
the affirmance by the district court in this court.

[¶7]      In accordance 
with statute, Wyo. Stat. § 31-7-120 (1989), the Department of Revenue and 
Taxation has established an appropriate record-keeping system. That 
record-keeping system is maintained in an electronic format. The statutes 
require the maintenance of a driver's record like that involved in this case. 
These are public records which the citizens of this state are at liberty to 
review, and they can obtain a printout of such a record. 
Wyo. Stat. § 16-4-204(a) 
(1990).

[¶8]      McDonald was 
called to a hearing with full notice of the charges he would be compelled to 
face. At that hearing, the hearing officer relied on an abstract of McDonald's 
driving record that identified him by name, address, date of birth, height, 
weight, sex, social security number, driver license number, and old driver 
license number. This abstract identified the driving offenses of which McDonald 
had been convicted, and it was certified by the records custodian. We have held 
that such evidence is not only admissible but sufficient to sustain a license 
suspension. Drake v. State ex rel. Dept. of Revenue and Taxation, 751 P.2d 1319 
(Wyo. 1988); Hooten v. State 
Dept. of Revenue and Taxation, 751 P.2d 1323 (Wyo. 1988). 
See 
State Dept. of Revenue and 
Taxation v. Hull, 751 P.2d 351 
(Wyo. 1988). We are persuaded 
by authority from the state of Washington that such a certified 
abstract is sufficient to establish a prima facie case on the part of the state 
and to shift the burden to McDonald to go forward with the evidence. State v. 
Monson, 113 Wn.2d 833, 784 P.2d 485 (1989); State v. Malone, 9 Wn. App. 122, 511 P.2d 67 (1973). See State v. Smith, 66 Wn. App. 825, 832 P.2d 1366 (Div. 1 
1992); James L. Isham, Annotation, Automobiles: Validity and Construction of 
Legislation Authorizing Revocation or Suspension of Operator's License for 
"Habitual," "Persistent," or "Frequent" Violations of Traffic Regulations, 48 
A.L.R.4TH 367 § 122 (1986). We note McDonald did not assert any inaccuracies in 
the abstract, whether by mere assertion or presentation of evidence, that the 
record-keeping system established by the State of 
Wyoming contained problems with 
respect to deficiencies in either accuracy or information.

[¶9]      We hold this is 
the kind of evidence commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent men in the 
conduct of their serious affairs. See Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-108 (1990). 
It is admissible pursuant to Rules, Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 
Ch. I, Rules of Practice and 
Procedure for Hearings Before the Independent Hearing Examiner, § 6(d) (repealed 
effective January 21, 
1993). This information, now 
stored in electronic format in computers and then generated out of those 
electronic files in the form of abstracts or printouts, is the sort of data 
compilation contemplated by Wyo.R.Evid. 803(6), (7), (8), and (10). The 
requirement of authentication or identification is satisfied in this instance 
pursuant to Wyo.R.Evid. 901. It is a certified record prepared and maintained in 
accordance with § 31-7-120. It is exactly the sort of document which is now 
utilized throughout our society from the smallest businesses to the largest 
governmental departments and agencies.

[¶10]   With respect to the attack upon the 
reference to a conviction in Oregon in this abstract, we point out that Wyoming 
is a member state of the Driver License Compact, as is Oregon.3 As 
set forth in the Wyoming statute, the Driver License Compact encompasses the 
following as a statement of the findings of the purpose for the compact and a 
declaration of policy:

ARTICLE I

Findings and Declaration 
of Policy

(a) The party states find 
that:

(i) The safety of their 
streets and highways is materially affected by the degree of compliance with 
state and local ordinances relating to the operation of motor 
vehicles;

(ii) Violation of such a 
law or ordinance is evidence that the violator engages in conduct which is 
likely to endanger the safety of persons and property;

(iii) The continuance in 
force of a license to drive is predicated upon compliance with laws and 
ordinances relating to the operation of motor vehicles, in whichever 
jurisdiction the vehicle is operated.

(b) It is the policy of 
each of the party states to:

(i) Promote compliance 
with the laws, ordinances, and administrative rules and regulations relating to 
the operation of motor vehicles by their operators in each of the jurisdictions 
where such operators drive motor vehicles;

(ii) Make the reciprocal 
recognition of licenses to drive and eligibility therefor more just and 
equitable by considering the overall compliance with motor vehicle laws, 
ordinances and administrative rules and regulations as a condition precedent to 
the continuance or issuance of any license by reason of which the licensee is 
authorized or permitted to operate a motor vehicle in any of the party 
states.

The Driver 
License Compact further provides:

ARTICLE III

Report of 
Convictions

(a) The licensing 
authority of a party state shall report each conviction of a person from another 
party state occurring within its jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the 
home state of the licensee. Such report shall:

(i) Clearly identify the 
person convicted;

(ii) Describe the 
violation specifying the section of the statute, code or ordinance 
violated;

(iii) Identify the court 
in which action was taken;

(iv) Indicate whether a 
plea of guilty or not guilty was entered, or conviction was a result of the 
forfeiture of bail, bond or other security; and

(v) Include any special 
findings made in connection therewith.

The effect of a 
conviction is articulated:

ARTICLE IV

Effect of 
Conviction

(a) The licensing 
authority in the home state, for the purposes of suspension, revocation or 
limitation of the license to operate a motor vehicle, shall give the same effect 
to the conduct reported, pursuant to Article III of this Compact, as it would if 
such conduct has occurred in the home state, in the case of convictions 
for:

(i) Manslaughter or 
negligent homicide resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle;

(ii) Driving a motor 
vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug, or 
under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders the driver 
incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle;

(iii) Any felony in the 
commission of which a motor vehicle is used;

(iv) Failure to stop and 
render aid in the event of a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death or 
personal injury of another.

(b) As to other 
convictions, reported pursuant to Article III, the licensing authority in the 
home state shall give such effect to the conduct as is provided by laws of the 
home state.

(c) If the laws of a 
party state do not provide for offenses or violations denominated or described 
in precisely the words employed in subdivision (a) of this Article, such party 
state shall construe the denominations and descriptions appearing in the 
subdivision (a) hereof as being applicable to and identifying those offenses or 
violations of a substantially similar nature and the laws of such party state 
shall contain such provisions as may be necessary to ensure that full force and 
effect is given to this Article.

Wyo. Stat. § 31-7-201 
(1989),

It is clear that 
the Oregon conviction was entered 
on McDonald's driver record in accordance with statute and, thus, fits within 
the public record concepts articulated above.

[¶11]   We hold the district court properly 
affirmed the decision of the hearing officer to admit and rely upon the abstract 
of the driving record used in this case. That abstract was sufficient to sustain 
the suspense of McDonald's driving privileges under 
Wyoming law. The burden shifted 
to McDonald to demonstrate inaccuracies in the record since it was properly 
admitted. McDonald made no such effort.

[¶12]   It follows that the orders of the 
district court and the hearing examiner must be affirmed.

URBIGKIT, J., files a dissenting 
opinion.

URBIGKIT, Justice, Retired, 
dissenting.

[¶13]   The inquiry of significance in this 
case addresses the kind of documentation required to authenticate a foreign 
jurisdiction conviction in order to adversely affect a 
Wyoming resident's driving 
privilege.

[¶14]   The requirement is not particularly 
obtuse or cloudy since the provisions are explicitly included in 
Wyoming's Driver License Compact 
enactment, Wyo. Stat. § 31-7-201, art. III (1989), which states:

(a) The licensing 
authority of a party state shall report each conviction of a person from another 
party state occurring within its jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the 
home state of the licensee. Such report shall:

(i) Clearly identify the 
person convicted;

(ii) Describe the 
violation specifying the section of the statute, code or ordinance 
violated;

(iii) Identify the court 
in which action was taken;

(iv) Indicate whether a 
plea of guilty or not guilty was entered, or conviction was a result of the 
forfeiture of bail, bond or other security; and

(v) Include any special 
findings made in connection therewith.

[¶15]   However we authenticate a line item 
from a computer in Wyoming, the record provided 
here shows no compliance with the information requirement which is established 
in the Driver License Compact.

[¶16]   I do not find this case to present 
a proper business record evidentiary test, W.R.E. 901. What should have been 
provided, instead of a technician's summary of whatever was received from the 
foreign jurisdiction, would have been whatever was received from the foreign 
jurisdiction to establish compliance with the Driver License 
Compact.

[¶17]   The only real proof that is 
provided by this record is that however accomplished, the 
Wyoming computer system 
showed:

CCC3833/OR 
Driving While Under the Influence

OFFENSE: 
1990/09/12 CONVICTION: 1990/09/13

[¶18]   If we look at the statute, that 
entry: does not necessarily clearly identify the person convicted; does not 
describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code or ordinance 
violated; does not identify the court in which the action was taken; does not 
indicate whether a plea of guilty or not guilty was entered or whether 
conviction was a result of forfeiture of bail, bond or other security; and, 
finally, does not show what, if any, other special findings were made. These 
admissions, involving every section of the statute, can hardly be considered to 
be substantial compliance. It may well be that the State has a record which 
would comply and certainly, as a business record, that document instead of the 
workmanship of some computer input technician would identify for me an 
appropriate business record to be utilized in the state of Wyoming.

[¶19]   Admittedly, we do strange things 
when we consider driving violations among one category of criminal offenses, but 
it should still be recognized that the rule for admission of evidence 
established in this case can find a broader application such that the intended 
reliability of either business records or official documents ceases to exist for 
trial pursuit in the courts of this state.

[¶20]   Lacking evidence showing compliance 
with the provisions of the Wyoming statute regarding the 
documentation of the Oregon offense, I would hold 
that insufficient evidence was presented to justify the action 
taken.

[¶21]   Consequently, I 
dissent.

 Footnotes

1 
Wyo. Stat. § 31-5-233 
(1989).

2 Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010 
(1991).

3 See 
Wyo. Stat. § 31-7-201, -202 
(1989) and Or. Rev. Stat. § 802.540 (1991).

APPENDIX A

EXHIBIT A

WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 
AND TAXATION DRIVER RECORD INFORMATION

0028-55948

 McDonald, Douglas John                                                                                                                                        
                                    
DATE: 1991/04/16 

1913 Park 
Ave Apt 2                                                                                                                                                
                        
REQUESTOR: 0005-82437 

Cheyenne, WY 
82007

 
 

DOB: 1947/03/12 
                
HEIGHT:         5-07 
FT-IN                  
            
WGT: 155 LBS                      
SEX: M                         
SSN: 517-54-3038

DRIVER LICENSE: 
             
DL#:                
102681-616                           
CLASS: C                              
OLD DR LIC:     
6580060140

ISSUED:        
1983/12/23                            
LAST DATE VALID:             
1992/03/12

 
 
RESTRICTIONS: 
                  
B: Corrective Lenses 

COMMERCIAL 
DRIVER LICENSE:           
____ YES      
X NO 

ENDORSEMENTS: 
NONE

 
 
CASE NUMBER 
                              
DESCRIPTION 

_______________              
            
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

CCC18637CHY 
                                           
Driving While Under the Influence 

OFFENSE: 1987/11/14                                           
CONVICTION: 1987/11/16 

CCC18637CHY 
                                           
Driving under influence suspension 

START: 1988/01/29                                                 
END: 1988/04/27 

CCC43328                                                    
Administrative perse suspension 

START: 1988/07/18                                                 
END: 1988/10/15 

OFFENSE: 1988/05/21 

CIT43328CCHY                                            
Wrong Way/Wrong Side of Road 

OFFENSE: 1988/05/21                                           
CONVICTION: 1988/06/23 

CITA43328CCHY 
                                        
Lenses Required 

OFFENSE: 1988/05/21                                           
CONVICTION: 1988/06/23 

CIT38320R                                                    
Failure to Obey Signs/controls 

OFFENSE: 1990/09/12                                           
CONVICTION: 1990/09/13 

CCC3833/OR                                               
Driving While Under the Influence 

OFFENSE: 1990/09/12                                           
CONVICTION: 1990/09/13 

CCC3833/OR                                               
Driving under influence suspension 

START: 1991/04/12                                                 
END: HEARING PENDING 

CCC3833AA                                                 
Financial responsibility suspension 

START: 1991/04/12 END: 
                                      
HEARING PENDING

 
 
Commercial 
Vehicle Driving Status:                       
Not applicable 

Non Commercial 
Vehicle Driving Status: Valid

* * * END OF DRIVING 
RECORD * * *

CERTIFICATION OF 
RECORDS

I hereby certify 
that I am the custodian of records of the Field Services Division of the 
Department of Revenue and Taxation, State of Wyoming, and that the attached 
are true copies of the documents on file in this office.

I further 
certify that these records are kept in the ordinary course of agency business 
and set forth matters required to be observed and reported by law.

Dated 
4-19-91 

Larry M. 
Pitmon

_____________

______ 
Director

______ 
Manager

v          
Supervisor