Opinion
No. 81-269
Decided February 12, 1982
1. Evidence — Certified Copies of Prior Convictions — Admissibility Where the State produced certified abstracts to prove the defendant's prior convictions, the abstracts were prima facie evidence that the defendant was duly convicted of the prior offenses. RSA 262-B:3 (now RSA 262:19).
2. Evidence — Certified Copies of Prior Convictions — Burden of Proof Where the State produced certified abstracts to prove the defendant's prior convictions, in the absence of sufficient evidence produced by the defendant to rebut the State's prima facie case, the State was not required to submit additional evidence to sustain its burden of proof that the prior convictions were valid. RSA 262-B:3 (now RSA 262:19).
3. Evidence — Certified Copies of Prior Convictions — Burden of Proof Where the State produced certified abstracts of the defendant's prior convictions, the defendant had the burden of proving that he was not duly convicted of the prior offenses. RSA 262-B:3 (now RSA 262:19).
4. Motor Vehicles — Habitual Offender Proceedings — Burden of Proof Where defendant, who was charged as an habitual offender based on three prior convictions for motor vehicle offenses, attempted to prove that with respect to two of the convictions he had not voluntarily waived counsel or knowingly pleaded guilty, and that these facts rendered those prior convictions inadmissible against him, but, at the time of the prior convictions, the defendant had signed a constitutionally sufficient waiver form stating that he had waived counsel and that the trial court had explained the charges against him, the signed waiver indicated that the defendant waived his right to counsel, and his general denial of the waiver was insufficient to sustain his burden to prove that the waiver was invalid. RSA ch. 262-B (now RSA ch. 262).
5. Evidence — Weight and Sufficiency — Role of Court The weight and credibility of evidence is an issue for the trial court.
6. Motor Vehicles — Habitual Offender Proceedings — Convictions Which May Be Considered Trial court did not err in admitting prior convictions of defendant charged as an habitual offender, which were proven by the State with certified abstracts, where the evidence introduced by the defendant in an attempt to rebut the prima facie case of the validity of the convictions established by the State consisted of an attempt to prove that he had not voluntarily waived counsel or knowingly pleaded guilty to the convictions, even though, at the time of the prior convictions, he had signed a constitutionally sufficient waiver of counsel and the trial court had explained the charges against him, since the weight and credibility of the defendant's evidence was an issue for the trial court, which did not abuse its discretion. RSA ch. 262-B (now RSA ch. 262).
Gregory H. Smith, attorney general (Betsy S. Westgate, assistant attorney general, a. on the brief, and Gregory W. Swope, attorney, orally), for the State.
Elliott, Jasper Bennett, of Newport (Stephen M. Bennett on the brief and orally), for the defendant.
The defendant, Norman R. Buckwold, was convicted as an habitual offender under RSA ch. 262-B (now in RSA ch. 262). The conviction was based on three prior convictions for motor vehicle offenses. The defendant sought to suppress two of his prior convictions, claiming that in those instances he had not effectively waived his right to counsel and he had not knowingly pleaded guilty to the offenses. The Superior Court (Johnson, J.) denied the defendant's motion to suppress the two prior convictions, found the defendant guilty and ordered that his driver's license in the State of New Hampshire be suspended for a minimum of four years. The defendant appealed the superior court's decision to this court.
[1, 2] The State produced certified abstracts to prove the defendant's prior convictions. The abstracts are prima facie evidence that the defendant was duly convicted of the prior offenses. RSA 262-B:3 (re-enacted in substantial part, Laws 1981, ch. 146, codified at RSA 262:19). In the absence of sufficient evidence produced by the defendant to rebut the State's prima facie case, the State need not submit additional evidence to sustain its burden of proof that the prior convictions were valid. State v. Ward, 118 N.H. 874, 877-78, 395 A.2d 511, 512-13 (1978).
[3, 4] Once the State produced the certified abstracts of the defendant's prior convictions, the defendant had the burden of proving that he was not duly convicted of the prior offenses. RSA 262-B:3 (re-enacted in substantial part, Laws 1981, ch. 146, enacted as RSA 262:19); State v. Ward, 118 N.H. at 878, 395 A.2d at 513. The defendant attempted to prove that he had not voluntarily waived counsel or knowingly pleaded guilty and that these facts rendered the prior convictions inadmissible against him. At the time of the prior convictions, however, the defendant had signed a constitutionally sufficient waiver form stating that he had waived counsel and that the trial court had explained the charges against him. See North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 (1979); Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 516 (1962). See also State v. Maxwell, 115 N.H. 363, 365, 341 A.2d 766, 767 (1975). As this court stated in State v. Ward, 118 N.H. at 877, 395 A.2d at 513, a signed waiver indicates that the defendant waived his right to counsel, and the defendant's general denial of the waiver is insufficient to sustain the defendant's burden to prove that the waiver was invalid. Id. at 877-78, 395 A.2d at 513.
[5, 6] Having reviewed the evidence that the defendant produced to rebut the State's prima facie proof of the validity of his prior convictions, we cannot say that the trial court erred in admitting the prior convictions. The weight and credibility of the defendant's evidence is an issue for the trial court, State v. Hardy, 120 N.H. 552, 554, 419 A.2d 398, 400 (1980), and we find no abuse of discretion. See State v. Scarlett, 121 N.H. 37, 40, 426 A.2d 25, 27 (1981).
Affirmed.
All concurred.