Opinion
No. 11–P–1385.
2013-02-20
COMMONWEALTH v. Jonathan CROWELL.
By the Court (GRASSO, MEADE & RUBIN, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Given the fact that the police report of the defendant's arrest in Missouri was factually detailed, based on personal knowledge and direct observation, and provided under circumstances that support its veracity, see Commonwealth v. Patton, 458 Mass. 119, 132–133 (2010), there was no error in the judge's determination that the police report was substantially reliable. Given the judge's repeated reference during the hearing to the reliability standard, her exclusion of a probation report on the basis that it was not reliable, and her discussion of some of the factors relevant to a reliability determination in speaking about the admissibility of the police report, the absence of an explicit oral or written finding of substantial reliability does not require reversal under either the standard for the review of unpreserved error put forward by the defendant, or the standard put forward by the Commonwealth. Nor did it otherwise offend due process. See Fay v. Commonwealth, 379 Mass. 498, 504–505 (1980) (holding requirements of due process are satisfied when the judge reviews the evidence and her findings in open court); Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 446 Mass. 61, 71 (2006) (stating admission of hearsay does not violate due process when the judge determines it is substantially reliable).
Order revoking probation and imposing sentence affirmed.