Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D was convicted of driving while intoxicated. The court sentenced him to ninety days of confinement, probated for twelve months, and assessed a $1200 fine. P moved to revoke probation when it was learned that D committed another DWI in a different county. State (P) introduced a certified copy of the second conviction faxed by the clerk of the other county. D objected. The court overruled it and revoked D’s probation. D appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The concurring opinion, authored by Justice Cohen and joined by one Justice, agreed that the fax was admissible as a duplicate. The fax also was admissible as an 'original' certified copy under Rules 1001 and 1002 because it was a counterpart intended by the Cameron County Clerk to be received as a certified copy and to have the same effect as the original judgment and sentence. The dissenting opinion reasoned that Rule 1005 establishes a particular hierarchy of secondary evidence, that under the rule the State failed to show reasonable diligence in trying to secure a certified copy, or a witness to compare a copy to the original, and that the State should not have been allowed to resort to the faxed document as an alternative method of proving the contents of the judgment. D appealed; D claims that P produced no evidence to support the authentication or certification of the faxed copy of the judgment other than by a copy of the seal.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co