No. 47 Harrisburg, 1983, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence dated February 2, 1983, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Criminal Division, at No. 1939 C.D. 1982.
Before Del Sole, Popovich and Roberts, JJ. Del Sole, J., files a Concurring Memorandum.
Judgment of Sentence affirmed.
DEL SOLE, J., files a Concurring Memorandum.
While I concur in the result reached by the majority, I do not do so based on the reasoning in the majority opinion.
My reading of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6103 leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the offered exhibit at the trial court should not have been admitted.
Section 6103 provides as follows:
Proof of Official Records
(a) General Rule - An official record kept within this Commonwealth by any court, district judge or other government unit, or any entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has the custody. The certificate may be made by any public officer having a seal of office and having official duties with respect to the government unit in which the record is kept. . .
(b) Lack of Record - A written statement that after an examination of the records of the government unit no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records designated by the statement, authenticated as provided in subsection (a), is admissible as evidence that the records contain no such records or entry." (Emphasis Supplied)
The prosecution in this case sought to introduce a statement from the Liquor Control Board that the defendant was not a licensee. The statement set forth that there was a lack of any record indicating that the defendant was licensed to distribute alcohol or malt beverages.
The introduction of this statute would be governed by § 6103(b) as set forth set forth above. That subsection requires authentication of the record as set forth in subsection (a). Subsection (a) requires that the officer having custody set forth with the record contains a certificate to the effect that the officer who was making the statement has custody of the records. That certificate would be made by the public officer having the seal of the office. This is what the legislature required and this is what the court should require.
However, I would affirm the conviction based upon the stipulation of counsel that his client had committed the act. A review of ...