Evidence – Authentication – Attestation

Where a defendant was found guilty under G.L.c. 269, §10G(a), a copy of a District Court docket sheet introduced at trial as evidence of a prior drug conviction was not properly authenticated, but the error did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Affirmed.

“This case asks us to determine whether a copy of a District Court docket sheet, introduced at trial as evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction of a drug offense, was properly authenticated where the requirements for self-authentication were not met. For the reasons discussed infra, we conclude that the document was not properly authenticated. However, we further conclude that the error did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice in the circumstances of this case. We therefore affirm the defendant’s conviction under G.L.c. 269, §10G(a). …

“Following a jury-waived trial on the sentence enhancement charges, the defendant was found guilty of G.L.c. 269, §10(d), based on a guilty plea to a firearm-related offense in 1997. He was also found guilty of G.L.c. 269, §10G(a), a lesser included offense of §10G(b), based on a 2002 drug conviction. The Commonwealth had sought to prove that drug conviction principally through a nine-page copy of the District Court docket labeled ‘Docket sheets 0115CR008785.’ Each page of the copy bore an embossed seal of the District Court, and the first five pages bore what appears to be a stamped signature of the clerk-magistrate, but none of the pages contained a written certification that the copy was true, correct, or had been compared to the original. The Commonwealth also introduced testimony from a police officer concerning the 2002 drug case, but that testimony did not independently establish the conviction. The defendant was subsequently sentenced to from five to seven years in State prison as a result of the §10G (a) sentence enhancement. The Appeals Court affirmed the convictions. Commonwealth v. Shaw, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 680, 690 (2025).

“We granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review on the limited question whether the copy of the docket sheet was properly authenticated and, if not, whether its erroneous admission created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. …

“At issue is whether the copy of the docket sheet bearing the embossed seal of the District Court and a stamped signature on the relevant pages, but without any indication of ‘attestation,’ meets the requirements for a self-authenticating document under rule 40(a). …

“The docket introduced in evidence included no attestation that it was a correct copy. The seal of the District Court and the stamped signature — assuming it belonged to the clerk — at most signaled that the records came from the clerk, who is the ‘proper custodian of the records’ of a particular court. Portland Maine Publ. Co. v. Eastern Tractors Co., 289 Mass. 13, 15 (1935). They are not a substitute for an attestation, which, as mentioned supra, indicates that a ‘comparison has been made between the copy and the original record’ (citation omitted). … Nothing in this court’s precedent suggests otherwise. …

“Because the defendant did not object to the admission of the copy at the time of trial, we review that error for a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. …

“The admission of the unauthenticated document at issue here did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. …

“The defendant’s conviction under G.L.c. 269, §10G(a), is affirmed.”

Commonwealth v. Shaw (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-089-26) (10 pages) (Budd, C.J.) The cases were tried before William F. Sullivan, J., in Superior Court. Haylie Jacobson on appeal for the defendant; Arne Hantson for the commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-13852) (July 29, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.