Bruton v. State
| Decision Date | 30 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. PD–1265–13.,PD–1265–13. |
| Citation | 428 S.W.3d 865 |
| Parties | Cain BRUTON, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Craig M. Price, Lewisville, TX, for Appellant.
Charles E. Orbison, Assistant District Attorney, Denton, Lisa C. McMinn, State's Attorney, Austin, TX, for the State.
In this case, we must determine whether two State's exhibits that purport to be foreign public documents or records were properly authenticated under Rules of Evidence 902(3) and (4).1 Although the documents meet some of the requirements of the rules, we hold that the documents were not properly authenticated because neither was accompanied by a final certification from a diplomatic or consular official specified in Rule 902(3) and because good cause for failing to obtain a final certification was lacking.2 Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.3
The parties agree that appellant's first name is Peter.4 At issue here are three exhibits that purport to be documentary evidence of prior convictions of a Peter Bruton from the United Kingdom.5 State's Exhibit 13 consists of a letter and three “certificates of conviction” purporting to be from the Norwich Crown Court. The letter, addressed to the Denton County District Attorney and signed by a person purporting to be a caseworker from that court, directs the District Attorney to the “enclosed Certificates of Conviction as requested” for a “Peter Bruton” with a date of birth matching appellant's. The certificates of conviction “certify” a “Peter Bruton,” with a date of birth matching appellant's, as having a total of twelve convictions for “indecent assault on a female.” The certificates are each signed, with the title “Officer of the Crown Court” underneath the signature. The letter and the certificates of conviction display a depiction of a crown with a lion and a unicorn, and all four documents provide case numbers for the convictions. The certificates of conviction are dated October, 31, 2008, and the letter referring to those certificates says that the certificates are enclosed in response to the District Attorney's letter of October 17, 2008.
State's Exhibit 14 purports to be an Interpol computer printout that contains a fingerprint card and list of twelve convictions in the United Kingdom. The convictions purport to relate to a “Peter Kane Bruton” with a date of birth matching appellant's. The individual is identified as a carpenter, with addresses in Norwich (United Kingdom) and Carrollton (United States).6 The printout describes the individual as having a stocky build, blue eyes, and short, straight, dark brown hair. The fingerprint card contains rolled impressions for a “Peter Bruton” with a date of birth matching appellant's.
State's Exhibit 15 consists of a letter on “Norfolk Constabulary” letterhead and a computer printout. The letter is addressed to the Denton County District Attorney'sOffice and is signed by someone purporting to be a Data Protection Disclosure Unit Officer of the Professional Standards Department. The letter states:
I write in reply to your letter dated 25th May 2010 in which you have requested access to all information in relation to the above criminal prosecution such as statements and reports for enhanced purposes only and not specifically the criminal prosecution. At this stage, the request appears to be excessive for the purpose and as such I am not prepared to release all of the reports, statements and record of interview. I am however, prepared to release a redacted copy of the Case Summary—I shall remove the names of the victims/witnesses. The Case Summary is produced by the officer in charge and is presented to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether or not an individual should be charged. It is a summary of the witness statements, events/allegations and the interview with the suspect. I have also enclosed a copy of the above individual's conviction history which will show the outcome of the above prosecution.
In your letter you have requested ‘Certified Copies'. I am afraid I am unable to provide this as we do not have a ‘Norfolk Constabulary’ stamp, however I have stamped the first pages with ‘Professional Standards' which is the department in which I work.7
The computer printout is stamped “professional standards,” identifies a “Peter Kane Bruton” with a date of birth matching appellant's, identifies the individual as a carpenter, identifies a Norwich address for the person (same as in State's Exhibit 14), and contains a list of twelve convictions for “indecent assault on female under 16.”
Evidence at the guilt phase of trial indicated that appellant was a carpenter and that the Norwich address identified in State's Exhibits 14 and 15 matched an address at which appellant had resided. There was testimony at the punishment phase of trial that fingerprints obtained from appellant in Texas matched those found in State's Exhibit 14.
The State sought to introduce the three exhibits at the punishment stage of trial.8 In a hearing outside the presence of the jury, appellant objected that the documents had not been properly authenticated, were hearsay, and had not been sufficiently connected to appellant. With respect to the authentication question, appellant complained that the documents were not self-authenticating. He argued that the documents were “not certified” and contained “some identifying characteristics that are not correct” including misspelling appellant's name, giving an incorrect Carrollton address, describing the person as “stocky,” and describing the person as having dark brown hair. Appellant also complained that the documents did “not contain any language or any kind of judgment that we would be familiar with here in Texas or in the United States,” did not refer to any cause numbers, lacked a seal, and, in some instances, bore illegible signatures. Appellant acknowledged that he had received copies of State's Exhibits 13 and 15 “some time ago” but maintained that he had never seen a copy of State's exhibit14 until the day of the hearing. Appellant also contended that no one was going to testify about who printed the document in State's Exhibit 14 or where it came from.
The State responded that the documents were admissible under Rules of Evidence 902(3) and 902(4).9 The State specifically pointed to the “good cause” portion of Rule 902(3) and to the letter from the Professional Standards Department of the Norfolk Constabulary as satisfying the requirement. The State also contended that the combination of information found in the various documents was sufficient to tie appellant to those documents.
Appellant and the trial court also briefly discussed “good cause” as it applied to State's Exhibit 15. What appellant's position was in this discussion is unclear, though he seemed to acknowledge that the data-protection officer could not certify something because the Norfolk Constabulary did not have a stamp. Although the clarity of appellant's arguments is clouded by a number of interruptions, appellant appears to have been claiming that, though there might be good cause for the lack of certification on State's Exhibit 15, State's Exhibit 15 was not sufficiently connected to State's Exhibit 13.
The trial court held that State's Exhibit 13 was certified, remarking that the documents did contain cause numbers and a seal. The trial court commented that State's Exhibit 14 should be treated like an NCIC or TCIC printout. With respect to State's Exhibit 15, the trial court remarked that it was arguably certified because of the “professional standards” stamp, but if it was not certified, the letter gave good cause because the Norfolk Constabulary does not have a stamp. The trial court and the State discussed the fact that various documents gave the correct name, date of birth, occupation, and Norwich address 10 for appellant, which served to tie the documents to him. The trial court admitted all three exhibits.
On appeal, appellant complained that the State failed to properly authenticate the exhibits. He argued:
[T]his evidence did not come in the form of a conventional judgment and sentence, properly authenticated or testified to by a witness. Rather, the State cobbled together several different documents, including what appear to be computer printouts and letters from clerks of English courts of undetermined origin.... The evidence of the foreign convictions did not pass admissibility muster for the prosecution of any crime because the documents used by the State bore no proper authentication; in fact, much of the information included in the various documents was flat wrong or could not be shown to connect Appellant to the alleged offenses.... Like the documents used here by the State to show Appellant's alleged previous convictions for child abuse, the State in Banks could not rely on self-authentication because the documents were not properly under seal.... The State's reliance on Tex.R. Evid. 902(3) in Appellant's case was also misplaced because not all of the documents used by the State—and admitted by the trial court—constituted documents that could satisfy the conditions of Rule 902(3). Rather, the trial court allowed the State to cobble together disparate documents with uncertified letters purporting to be from the English court in order to “authenticate” the entire group of documents, including uncertified computer printouts.
The State argued that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the documents to be authentic because an “Officer of the Crown Court attested that the documents were certified, and ... a caseworker in Norwich Crown Court provided a further indication that the Certificates of Conviction were genuine.” The State concluded that “State's Exhibit 13 was certified, State's Exhibit [15] arguably was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. State
...added). "Certified as correct" means that the copy is certified as a correct copy of the governmental record. Bruton v. State, 428 S.W.3d 865, 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The record from which the certified copy is derived need not itself be the original document, so long as the original do......
-
Rodriguez v. State
...for the first time in a reply brief" but addressing "arguments raised in the reply brief in the interest of justice"), aff'd 428 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 5. Although the documents pertaining to the 1994 conviction specify that Rodriguez's middle name was "Rudolf" or "Fudolf" rathe......
-
Rodriguez v. State, 03-18-00260-CR
...for the first time in a reply brief" but addressing "arguments raised in the reply brief in the interest of justice"), aff'd 428 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 5. In its reply brief, the State argues that Rodriguez failed to preserve his third issue for appellate purposes by failing to ......
-
Jordan v. State
...Jordan does not argue that there are any flaws inthe certification or that the document itself is a forgery.4 See Bruton v. State, 428 S.W.3d 865, 873-75 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (explaining that rule 902, along withother authentication rules, is designed to ensure that a document that is adm......
-
Evidence
...record; the certification need not attest to the truth of the matters contained in that governmental record. Bruton v. State, 428 S.W.3d 865, 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The government-agency record, from which the certified copy is derived, need not itself be the original document, at leas......
-
Evidence
...record; the certification need not attest to the truth of the matters contained in that governmental record. Bruton v. State, 428 S.W.3d 865, 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The government-agency record, from which the certified copy is derived, need not itself be the original document, at leas......
-
Evidence
...record; the certification need not attest to the truth of the matters contained in that governmental record. Bruton v. State, 428 S.W.3d 865, 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The government-agency record, from which the certified copy is derived, need not itself be the original document, at leas......
-
Evidence
...record; the certification need not attest to the truth of the matters contained in that governmental record. Bruton v. State, 428 S.W.3d 865, 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The government-agency record, from which the certified copy is derived, need not itself be the original document, at leas......