Opinion ID: 852940
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Habitual Offender Finding

Text: Dumas contends that the habitual offender finding should be reversed because of error in the admission of certain exhibits. The record shows that over Dumas' objection the trial court admitted into evidence State's exhibit 54 which is identified as consisting of name card, repeater cards, information/identification sheet, finger prints and FBI sheets for Ronald Dumas, M/B, DOB 11/12/1959, SS# XXX-XX-XXXX, B of I# 44470, FBI # 13256T9. R. at 812. Dumas also objected to State's exhibit 58 which is identified as consisting of repeater sheet for Ronald Dumas, 9-22-87, SS# XXX-XX-XXXX, DOB 8-31-58, BOFI # 44470. Id. at 816. [2] Both documents originated from the offices of the Lake County Sheriff and purport to be certified pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 44(A)(1). Dumas contends the documents were certified at the beginning and stated that the foregoing were true, full and accurate. Br. of Appellant at 9. However, as Dumas correctly points out [t]here were no foregoing documents attached to the certification. Id. Thus, according to Dumas, the documents were not properly certified. We have addressed this precise issue on more than one occasion. The law is now settled that the admission of documents is not error where the certification is placed on top of the papers of an exhibit rather than on the back. See Miller v. State, 563 N.E.2d 578, 584 (Ind.1990) ([T]he placement of the certificate on top of the papers rather than on the back in no way causes any confusion as to the authenticity of the papers.); Cavendish v. State, 496 N.E.2d 46, 48 (Ind.1986) ([T]he authenticity of the documents was not placed into question by virtue of the fact that the certification was stapled atop the certified documents.). The trial court properly admitted State's exhibits 54 and 58. Accordingly there was no error.