Court Opinion

ID: 9858223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:18:47.044342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:35.144080
License: Public Domain

*72MANSFIELD, Judge,
dissenting.
Because I believe that a fax copy is neither an original nor a duplicate of an original as contemplated under the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence, I respectfully dissent.
Texas Rule of Criminal Evidence 901(a) provides the “requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Rule 901(a) is a broad rule that merely requires that certain evidence, to be admissible, must be authenticated by the proponent.
The evidence at issue, the judgment of conviction from Cameron County, if properly authenticated, would be a public record or report. Rule 901(b)(7) provides the authentication requirements of Rule 901(a) are met with respect to public reports or records if there is “evidence that the writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept.”
Rule 902 provides for self-authentication of domestic public documents, thereby obviating the need for the proponent of the documents’ admissibility to produce extrinsic evidence as to their authenticity, if:
(1) in the case of a document under seal, there is a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution; and
(2) in the case of a document not under seal, a public officer having a seal and having official duties in the political subdivision or district of the person who signed the document certifies under seal the signer had official capacity to sign the document and that the signature is genuine.
In the present case, a certified copy of appellant’s judgment of conviction for driving while intoxicated was prepared in Cameron County. Each page of the Cameron County judgment contains a seal stating, “County Court at Law No. 2 of Cameron County, Texas.” The seal is placed over a stamp which states: “A certified copy, Attest: June 8,1994, Joe G. Rivera, County Clerk, Cameron County, Texas. By Irene Dlz, Deputy.” There is no question the certified copy fully complies with the self-authentication requirements of Rule 902(1) and would be admissible as a public record under Rule 1005. Had the State offered the certified copy at the revocation proceeding it would have been admissible, as conceded by the parties, as a copy of a public record under Rule 1005.1
The issue before us is whether the fax copy of the Cameron County judgment is a “duplicate” of the certified copy under Rule 1001(4). Under Rule 1008, “[a] duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.”
The fax copy is not admissible under Rule 1005 because it is not certified in accordance with Rule 902. While the fax copy does have what appears to be a copy of a seal as well as a copy of an attesting signature, the State did not offer any evidence as to the reliability or veracity of same. Rules 902, 1002, and 1005, in my opinion, were intended to allow the introduction into evidence of public rec*73ords that meet at least one of the following criteria:
(1) the original itself, which, by definition, is self-authenticating;
(2) a certified copy of the original, which, under Rules 1001(3), 1005, and 902, is defacto treated as an original.
A fax copy may well be a “duplicate” under Rule 1001(4), but it fails to meet the requirements of Rule 1005. The record below does not reveal the State introduced any testimony by a witness who compared the fax copy to the original (or to the certified copy) and then testified the fax copy was a correct and accurate copy of same. Second, only an original attestation/certification meets the authentication requirements of Rule 902 with respect to a copy. What purports to be authentication of the fax copy in the present case is itself, only a copy of what purports to be an authentication.2
In my opinion, the admission of facsimile copies without an original attestation/certification is not permitted by the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence, as currently written.3
I respectfully dissent.
BAIRD, OVERSTREET and MEYERS, JJ., join.

. The certified copy, having met the authentication requirements under Rule 902, would also be admissible as a duplicate under Rules 1001(4) and 1003.

. In effect, a fax copy, absent an original attestation complying with Rule 902, is a copy of a copy. As such, it is not admissible under Rule 1005.

. This Court may amend the Rules, pursuant to authority granted it by Acts 1985, 69th Leg. Chap. 685, p. 5136, Sections 5-9, to provide for the admission of facsimile copies. To do so by any other method would, in my opinion, be an improper exercise of our authority.