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.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.