Case Title: State v. Veach

Citation: 

Docket Number: 90-568

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 90-568

                             MARCH TERM, 1991

State of Vermont                  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                  }
                                  }
     v.                           }          District Court of Vermont,
                                  }          Unit No. 1, Bennington Circuit
                                  }
Ronald Veach                      }          DOCKET NO. 770-771-5-90Bcr


             In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

     Defendant appeals from a conviction, after a jury trial, of careless
and negligent operation (23 V.S.A. { 1091(a)) and leaving the scene of an
accident (23 V.S.A. { 1128).  We affirm.

     The central issue on appeal is the identity of defendant.  The accident
occurred at night, and the driver of the other car was "blindsided" and
could not identify the driver.  There were several occupants in the suspect
vehicle, and the State relies on the testimony of an eyewitness who was at
the gas station where the events occurred and who identified defendant as
someone she "recognized as seeing him before, but not knowing his name."
Asked about the lighting conditions, the witness stated that "[t]here was
[sic] a lot of lights over the pumps."  The witness was familiar with the
usual parking place of the suspect vehicle and later went to that spot and
obtained a license plate number, which she related to the accident victim
and to a police officer.

     The police officer testified that he ran a license check of Department
of Motor Vehicle records on the vehicle, but defendant raised hearsay
objections to his testimony about ownership of the car according to the
records.  The trial court overruled the hearsay objection, and the officer
testified that defendant was a co-owner of the suspect car.  Following a
guilty verdict on both charges, defendant filed post-trial motions based on
the court's hearsay ruling.  The motions were denied, and the present appeal
followed.

     We agree with defendant that the officer's testimony about relating the
information he obtained from Department of Motor Vehicle records was hearsay
as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at
the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter
asserted."  V.R.E. 801(c).  The State was able to demonstrate that defendant
was a co-owner of the car, which fact was relevant to the issue of operation
of the vehicle, though clearly not conclusive.  The trial court erred in
concluding that the testimony was admissible as a public record or report
under V.R.E. 803(6), as there was no attempt to comply with the authen-
tication requirements for such admission.  See Cullimore v. Barnett Bank of
Jacksonville, 386 So. 2d 894, 895 (Fla. App. 1980) (business records
exception for license tag check through police dispatcher inapplicable
because no records or reports offered into evidence).

     However, the error was not significant.  Defendant was identified by an
eyewitness who knew the area where defendant lived and had "seen the car
around that area quite a bit."  She had also seen defendant "five or six"
times and was familiar with his identity.  She testified that she had an
opportunity to see the driver of the car when it passed her at the accident
scene and that there was adequate lighting to do so.  The eyewitness located
the suspect car after the accident without aid of state records.  She made a
positive in-court identification which did not depend in any way on estab-
lishing his ownership of the vehicle, which she identified as having two
neon colored bumper stickers bearing religious inscriptions.   And other
evidence further cemented the identity of the suspect car by relating the
damage to the victim's car to corresponding damage to the suspect car.

     Defendant's effort at trial was solely directed at attempting to shake
the eyewitness' credibility and reliability.  At no point did either the
State or defendant raise the question of who had title to the car.  In its
summation, the State argued that "[t]he State would submit that [the Motor
Vehicle records evidence] is good corroborating evidence as to which car was
involved, the defendant's car."

     It is clear that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty,
regardless of the error by the trial court in admitting the officer's testi-
mony about the Motor Vehicle records.  See V.R.E. 103(a) (erroneous evident-
iary ruling that does not affect substantial right of a party is harmless
error);  V.R.Cr.P. 52(a) ("Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which
does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.")  See State v.
Hunt, 150 Vt. 483, 494,