In an important recent decision, the Commonwealth ruled that a representative of the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) could not testify about the results of a firearms registry records search conducted by a different CJIS employee. The appeals court ruled that such testimony was hearsay, and this led to the Commonwealth reversing a conviction for unlawful possession of ammunition in Massachusetts.
The Background of Commonwealth vs. Jose Encarnacion
The ruling stems from a case involving a traffic stop in January 2020. After an officer pulled the defendant over for a broken tail light, they determined that his license had been suspended. Next, they arrested him, placed him in handcuffs, and searched his vehicle. This search led to the discovery of a firearm, and the officer asked the defendant to present his firearms license. The defendant stated that he did not have a license, and the officer subsequently located six rounds of “loose ammunition” – plus a magazine loaded with seven cartridges.
When the defendant eventually faced a trial for unlawful possession charges, a CJIS Deputy Commissioner explained that law enforcement officials could use the CJIS database to determine whether individuals had been approved for or denied firearms licenses. However, this CJIS employee did not personally search the database to determine whether the defendant had acquired a license.
Initially, defense counsel objected to this testimony on the grounds of hearsay. However, the judge overruled the objection and allowed the testimony. The counsel then objected to similar issues, and the prosecution offered to call in additional witnesses. They also offered to have a witness conduct a CJIS database search in real time before the jury. However, none of these offers actually materialized, and the judge seemed to prefer the initial testimony of the deputy commissioner.
Appeals Court Defines CJIS Testimony as Hearsay
An appeals court found that the testimony of the CJIS Deputy Commissioner was, in fact, hearsay. It is not difficult to see why they came to this conclusion, as the commissioner testified about what someone else had done. Not only that, but the commissioner testified about the conclusions of a CJIS database search conducted by someone else.
The court also determined that even if there was an exception to the hearsay rule in this circumstance, the testimony would have violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights anyway. Among other things, the Sixth Amendment includes the right to confront your accuser directly.
Can a Massachusetts Defense Lawyer Help With Unlawful Possession of Ammo?
An experienced defense lawyer in Massachusetts may be able to help you defend yourself against charges of unlawful possession of ammunition. As the recent Commonwealth decision shows, testimony from CJIS employees may not be as reliable as prosecutors assume. The court must be very careful when choosing witnesses to testify against defendants in these cases, and they should choose the same person who actually conducted a records check in order to avoid hearsay issues. To explore a potential defense strategy in greater detail, reach out to Edward R. Molari today.