Ernesto Wilfredo Solano Godoy v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Citations: 62 Va. App. 113; 742 S.E.2d 407; 2013 WL 2300602; 2013 Va. App. LEXIS 160Docket: 0369124

Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia; May 28, 2013; Virginia; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Ernesto Wilfredo Solano Godoy was convicted of multiple offenses, including burglary, rape, two counts of object sexual penetration, and sodomy, following a jury trial in Fairfax County. He received a cumulative prison sentence of 150 years, with 10 years suspended on the rape conviction, resulting in an active sentence of 35 years due to concurrent sentencing. On appeal, Godoy challenged the admission of his telephone records as evidence, arguing they did not meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the trial court’s judgment, ruling that the evidence should be viewed in favor of the Commonwealth. The evidence presented at trial indicated that Godoy forcibly entered K.A.A.’s apartment, threatened her with a knife, and sexually assaulted her. Key evidence included physical traces linking Godoy to the scene, such as fingerprints and a knife, and his identification by a colleague of the victim. Godoy defended himself by claiming he had a consensual affair with K.A.A., suggesting she invited him over and became angry when he wanted to end the relationship.

Appellant was outside on a balcony when his phone rang, indicating a call from his wife. He alleges that K.A.A. seized the phone, locked the balcony door, and threatened to inform his wife about their affair. In response, appellant attempted to force the door open with tools but K.A.A. ultimately let him back inside. Appellant acknowledged having consensual sexual contact with K.A.A. and was familiar with her apartment from a prior visit regarding an auto part. 

During the trial, Ronald Witt from T-Mobile testified about the generation and maintenance of phone records, confirming they are automatically produced without human input. The Commonwealth sought to introduce appellant’s phone records from the incident night as Exhibit 47. Appellant objected, questioning the fulfillment of the business records exception to hearsay and the relevance of the records. The trial court overruled his objection and admitted the records. 

On appeal, appellant argues that the admission of Exhibit 47 was erroneous because it did not meet the business records exception, thereby undermining his defense. The Commonwealth contends that appellant did not preserve his objection according to Rule 5A:18. However, the court determined that appellant sufficiently raised his hearsay objection, allowing the appeal to proceed on its merits.

The Commonwealth argues that the exhibit in question qualifies as a computer-generated document, thus exempt from the hearsay rule. Alternatively, if deemed hearsay, it falls within the business records exception. The Commonwealth also asserts that any potential error from admitting the exhibit was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court has broad discretion regarding evidence admissibility, and appellate courts will uphold such rulings absent an abuse of discretion. Evidence is admissible if it pertains to an issue in the case and its probative value outweighs policy considerations. Hearsay, defined as out-of-court statements offered for their truth, is inadmissible unless it meets a recognized exception, with the burden on the proponent to demonstrate compliance. Under Virginia's business records exception, verified entries may be admitted without requiring proof from record keepers, provided they are made by individuals with personal knowledge during the regular course of business. The reliability of such records is ensured through their systematic preparation. However, for computer-generated evidence, there is no out-of-court declarant available for cross-examination, as demonstrated in the case of Penny v. Commonwealth, where a call trap report was deemed inadmissible without evidence of the device's reliability, highlighting the challenges of establishing the truth-finding process in the absence of human declarants.

The admissibility of T-Mobile's telephone records was affirmed as they were automatically generated without human involvement, rendering hearsay principles inapplicable. Witt, the custodian of the records, testified that they were created contemporaneously with calls and not for litigation purposes. The Supreme Court's precedent in Kettler v. Scott established that computer records can be admissible under the business records exception; however, in this case, the absence of human input meant that this exception did not apply. Previous rulings indicated that reliability is the key factor for admissibility of computer-generated records. Witt confirmed the records were maintained in the normal course of business and were accurate, supporting their reliability. Ultimately, the trial court's decision to admit the records was upheld, as they effectively undermined the appellant’s claims regarding the events of the night in question.