DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 2804 C.D. 1983
Citation Numbers: 99 Pa. Commw. 563, 514 A.2d 233
Judges: Doyle, Kalish, Rogers
Filed Date: 8/11/1986
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/24/2022
Opinion by
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety (Department) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County which sustained the appeal of Bryan Lee Stevens (Appellee) from the Departments suspension of his operating privilege pursuant to Section 1539 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. §1539 (accumulation of eleven points).
At a hearing before the court of common pleas on June 2, 1983 the Department, as proof of the underlying convictions supporting Appellees license suspension, offered into evidence photocopies of three citations for speeding violations which were issued to Appellee on April 3, 1982, October 23, 1982 and November 24, 1982, along with photocopies of the certifications of disposition which appeared on the reverse of each citation. These photocopies were offered under cover of a sepa
Appellees counsel objected to the admission of this evidence, and the trial court sustained his objection on the grounds that the court was unable to discern the raised impression of the district justices seal on two of the three certifications. The hearing was continued to allow the Department the opportunity to obtain more legible copies.
At the reconvened hearing on September 1, 1983, the Department reoffered the same proofs of conviction and cited a case to the court, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Kluger, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 460, 310 A.2d 455 (1974), opinion on reargument, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 460, 317 A.2d 686 (1974), for the proposition that even where the imprinted seal is not visible on a photocopy, so long as the copy is proper on its face and is certified by the Bureau, it is sufficient proof of conviction.
The court accepted Kluger as controlling and admitted the records (as Exhibit C-l) into evidence. Although counsel for Appellee continued to object on the record, he makes no argument before this Court on the basis of this objection, and in feet, states in his brief that “the court correctly accepted the[se] records into evidence.”
The matter might have been concluded at this point had the Department not indicated to the court that it had gone one step further and also obtained copies of the original citations and certifications directly from the office of the district justice. These copies were also offered into evidence (as Exhibit C-2) and were objected to by counsel for Appellee because the certifications of disposition differed from those obtained from the Bu
The trial court admitted Exhibit C-2 into evidence, noting that although it appeared to conflict with Exhibit C-l, it was nevertheless facially competent proof of the convictions. Appellee then took the stand on his own behalf and testified that although he did pay the fines and costs on each citation, he at no time entered any written or oral pleas of guilty.
The court then issued a decision reversing the license suspension, stating that Exhibit C-l and Exhibit C-2 conflicted with one another, and consequently neither constituted credible evidence of Appellees conviction of the underlying offenses. The court also found that Appellee had requested a hearing on each conviction and had not received one. He therefore remanded the case back to the district justice for hearings on the citations.
On appeal, the Department raises several arguments. First, since Exhibit C-l was sufficient to sustain its burden of proof, the court should have simply ignored Exhibit C-2; second, that the two exhibits did not differ substantively, since Section 6501(b) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. §6501(b), provides that “[a] payment by any person charged with a violation of this title of the fine prescribed for the violation is a plea of guilty . . .” (emphasis added); third, that Appellees testimony before the court that he paid the fines and costs was alone sufficient to prove his conviction; and, finally, that the remand order was improper because it required reopening the underlying criminal conviction.
Furthermore, we agree with the Department that Exhibit C-l and Exhibit C-2 were not substantively inconsistent with one another. The certifications of disposition in Exhibit C-2 were handwritten reproductions rather than photocopies. It is quite obvious from examination of Exhibit C-l that obtaining clearer photocopies of the seal would have been impossible, since the copies are nearly black, and still the markings are barely discernible. A blank certification form was therefore filled out by hand and signed by District Justice Brown, as acting justice for District Justice DeFilippo, the justice who signed the original certifications.
*567 As we read that statutory section, it would be entirely appropriate for the Commonwealth to utilize any means of reproduction (e.g., photocopy, typed or even handwritten), and so long as the certified copy is proper on its face, such reproduction must be accepted by the courts with the same force and effect as the original.
This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the Department’s further argument that Appellee proved his conviction through his own testimony.
Order
Now, August 11, 1986, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Mise. Term, 109-P 1983, dated September 8, 1983, is hereby reversed,
It is not necessary that the reproductions be photocopies of the originals. As we said in Kluger, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 464, 317 A.2d at 687: