Title: State of Maine v. Shawn A. Woodbury
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: Pen-10-346
State: Maine
Issuer: Maine Supreme Court
Date: March 1, 2011

State of Maine v. Shawn A. Woodbury Annotate this Case Download PDF MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2011 ME 25 Docket: Pen-10-346 Submitted On Briefs: January 27, 2011 Decided: March 1, 2011 Panel: Reporter of Decisions ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ. STATE OF MAINE v. SHAWN A. WOODBURY PER CURIAM [¶1] Shawn A. Woodbury appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial entered by the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Anderson, J.) on one count of operating after habitual offender revocation (Class D), 29-A M.R.S. § 2557-A(2)(A) (2010). Woodbury argues that his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated when the court admitted the portion of a Secretary of State s certificate that stated that Woodbury s right to operate was revoked at the time he was stopped for operating a vehicle because the statutory conditions for restoration had not been satisfied. We affirm the judgment. [¶2] Only testimonial statements are subject to exclusion by the Confrontation Clause, and the trial court s legal conclusion that the statements in 2 the certificate were nontestimonial, and thus admissible, is reviewed de novo. State v. Ducasse, 2010 ME 117, ¶¶ 8, 10, 8 A.3d 1252, 1254. [¶3] Contrary to Woodbury s contention and consistent with our recent jurisprudence, the challenged language, essentially stating that Woodbury s license was revoked according to Secretary of State records on the relevant date, does not violate the Confrontation Clause or the United States Supreme Court s decisions in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51-52, 53-54 (2004) and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. ---, ---, 129 S. Ct. 2527, 2531-32, 2537, 2538-40 (2009). See State v. Gilman, 2010 ME 35, ¶¶ 7, 29-31, 993 A.2d 14, 17, 23-24 (holding that the admission of the Secretary of State s certificate at the appellant s trial for operating after habitual offender revocation did not violate the appellant s rights under the Confrontation Clause on the grounds that the certificate stated, among other things, that the appellant s privilege to operate was under revocation when he was stopped); see also Ducasse, 2010 ME 117, ¶¶ 12-13, 8 A.3d at 1255-56 (holding that admission of a certificate of compliance did not violate the appellant s Confrontation Clause rights); State v. Murphy, 2010 ME 28, ¶¶ 1, 5, 19-26, 991 A.2d 35, 35-36, 37, 41-44 (holding that admission of Secretary of State s certificate as prima facie proof that notice of suspension had been sent to the appellant did not violate the Confrontation Clause); State v. Tayman, 2008 ME 177, ¶¶ 1, 12, 24-25, 960 A.2d 1151, 1152, 1155, 1158 (same). 3 The entry is: Judgment affirmed. ___________________________ Attorney for Shawn Woodbury: Jeffrey M. Silverstein, Esq. 9 Central St. Bangor, Maine 04401 Attorneys for the State: R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney Susan J. Pope, Asst. Dist. Atty. Prosecutorial District V 97 Hammond St. Bangor, Maine 0401 Penobscot County Superior Court docket number CR-2009-961 FOR CLERK REFERENCE O NLY