explaining that the Board may take official notice of a Form 257-C contained in its own files when the form is offered into evidence and pertains to a necessary factual determination
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the Board may take official notice of a Form 257-C contained in its own files when the form is offered into evidence and pertains to a necessary factual determination
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*1064 CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge SIMPSON.
Although I concur in the result reached by the majority, I write separately to express my concern about this Court’s inconsistent application of the doctrine of official notice. In particular, I believe a recent case employing the doctrine, Ramos v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 954 A.2d 107 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008), was wrongly decided. I fear that this case compounds the problems of Ramos by failing to distinguish it.
Both this case and Ramos deal with receipt into evidence of an official record of the Board. In this case, admission of the record is upheld under the doctrine of official notice, thereby supporting a finding that the revocation hearing was timely. In Ramos , admission of an official record of the Board was disallowed, despite the doctrine of official notice, thereby resulting in a determination that the revocation hearing was not proved to be timely. To me, the cases are inconsistent.
Both this case and Ramos are controlled by our Court’s decision in Taylor v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 130 Pa.Cmwlth. 627 , 569 A.2d 368 , appeal denied, 523 Pa. 652 , 567 A.2d 655 (1989). In Taylor , as in this case and in Ramos , a question arose as to whether a revocation hearing for a parolee convicted of a new crime was timely. In Taylor , a continuance request form was received in evidence over hearsay and confrontation objections. The form, which was in the Board’s files for the parolee, bore notations of an institutional supervisor indicating the parolee asked for the continuance but refused to sign the form. The supervisor, who worked at the institution where the hearing was held but did not testify, also noted on the form the date and time of the conversation with the parolee as well as the parolee’s comments concerning his reason for the continuance. Id. at 369-70. This Court held receipt of the form proper under the doctrine of official notice. Also, based on the form, this Court held that the parolee requested a continuance, during which the time for holding a hearing was suspended, and that the revocation hearing was timely.
I cannot reconcile this case, Ramos and Taylor . Our goal is to clarify the law, not to unsettle it. My concern is that between Ramos and this case, we achieve the latter result.