Admissibility of Authenticated Copies of Judgments to Prove a Prior Conviction

Facts:

During the punishment phase of a trial for a defendant convicted of four counts of sexual assault of a child, the State introduced a judgment of conviction for a prior sexual assault of a child and a judgment revoking probation for that conviction to prove the defendant had committed a prior sexual assault of a child. The judgment of conviction had a poor quality fingerprint, but the judgment revoking probation had a good-quality fingerprint which was sufficient to compare to fingerprints which the State had taken from the defendant. The State used an expert to prove the fingerprints from the defendant matched the fingerprints from the revocation judgment. But the State’s expert could not testify that the fingerprint on the judgment of conviction matched the fingerprints taken from the defendant, and the defense objected to the admission of the judgment of conviction because the expert could not testify under oath that the fingerprint on the judgment of conviction matched the defendant’s fingerprints.

The State requested its witness to read the names, cause numbers, and dates of birth listed on both the judgment of conviction and the judgment revoking probation. The prosecutor listed this data on the court white board to link the judgment of conviction to the judgment revoking probation. And over the defense’s objection, the court admitted the judgment of conviction.

Issue:

Did the court err by admitting the judgment of conviction?

Short Answer:

No. The fingerprints pertaining to the prior offense do not need to be physically attached to the judgment of conviction proving the defendant had committed a prior offense. But the State must provide evidence connecting the document proving the prior conviction and the document containing the fingerprints used to prove the person described by the documents is the defendant. And the State used the names, dates of birth, and the cause numbers listed on the documents to link the fingerprints in the judgment of revocation to the judgment of conviction.

Discussion:

There is no exclusive way to prove a defendant has been convicted of prior offenses. Aldridge v. State, 732 S.W.2d 396, 396 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, pet. ref’d). And the State may use authenticated copies of judgments or penitentiary packets to prove the prior offenses. Griffin v. State, 181 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d), Aldridge, 732 S.W.2d at 396. But the State must also provide evidence the person described by the authenticated documents is the defendant for the documents to be admissible. Griffin, 181 S.W.3d at 820; Davila v. State, 930 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996, pet. ref’d). The most common evidence provided to prove the person described in the documents is the defendant is fingerprints, but it is not the only way. Griffin, 181 S.W.3d at 820. And when fingerprints are used, the document containing the fingerprints from the prior conviction does not need to be physically attached to the authenticated judgment of conviction for a prior offense for the document to be admissible as long as the State has other means of proving the two documents pertain to the same case. Davila, 930 S.W.2d at 653.

In Davila v. State, the State used a penitentiary packet and a fingerprint card from the packet during the punishment phase of Davila’s trial to prove Davila had been convicted of a prior offense. Id. at 652. Davila objected to the admissibility of the penitentiary packet because the fingerprint card pertaining to the packet had not been physically attached to the packet. Id. at 652-53. The court of appeals noted the same name was on the packet as on the fingerprint card, and the Texas Department of Corrections number on the fingerprint card matched both the number on the packet and a photograph of the defendant within the packet. Id. at 653. Stating any deficiencies in the condition of the evidence pertained to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility, the court held the packet and fingerprint card were admissible into evidence. Id.

And there is no substantial difference between the fingerprints in the judgment revoking probation and the fingerprint card in Davila.[1] The fingerprints used to prove the defendant had been convicted of a prior sexual assault of a child were not physically attached to the judgment of conviction. Rather, they were in the judgment revoking probation. But the State produced evidence which linked the fingerprints in the judgment revoking probation to the judgment of conviction: The names on the judgment of conviction and the judgment of revocation were the same; the dates of birth listed on both judgments were the same, and the cause numbers on both judgments were the same. Because both documents contained identical identifying information, the State proved the documents pertained to the same case.

Thus, the State linked the fingerprints on the judgment revoking probation to the judgment of conviction. Because the State linked the two judgments together and linked the defendant’s fingerprints to the fingerprints contained in the judgment revoking probation, the court did not err in admitting the judgment of conviction to prove the defendant had been convicted of a prior sexual assault of a child.

Endnote:

[1] The poor-quality of the fingerprint on the judgment of conviction does not bear on the admissibility of the document because the State was able to link the judgment of conviction to the judgment revoking probation. Instead, the poor quality of the fingerprint bears on the weight of the evidence. Davila v. State, 930 S.W.2d 641 Tex. App.—El Paso 1996, pet. ref’d). And even then it is unlikely a court will find the evidence was insufficient to find the defendant had been convicted of a prior sexual assault of a child. See generally Griffin v. State, 181 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d) (holding a penitentiary packet which did not contain any fingerprints was sufficient to prove Griffin had been convicted of a prior felony because it contained other identifying information: gender, skin color, height, date of birth, name, alias, eye color, and hair color).