Court Opinion

ID: 9764708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:37:35.017383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:00.924195
License: Public Domain

DALLY, Judge,
dissenting.
State’s Exhibit No. 41 was offered at the punishment phase of the trial to prove appellant’s prior criminal record pursuant to the provisions of Art. 37.07, Sec. 3, V.A.C. C.P. Whether State’s Exhibit No. 41 was properly admitted in evidence depends on whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was the same person convicted in Louisiana.
State’s Exhibit No. 41 includes exemplified copies of an information and court minutes. That Exhibit evidences that a person by the name of Neil Douglas Daniel, in Cause No. 92,803, was convicted on his plea of guilty for the offense of theft of property of a value in excess of $100 and less than $500, in the First District Court of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, on .September 22, 1972. Daniel was granted probation.
State’s Exhibit No. 45 was admitted as a business record of the Dallas County Jail. It is dated January 12, 1973. This business record was made when a person by the name of Neil Douglas Daniel was arrested and held in the Dallas County Jail. This jail card states that Neil Douglas Daniel was a “Louisiana Probationer” who had been convicted in Cause No. 92,803 for the offense of attempted felony theft; it states he had completed his probation and was released. This business record bears the fingerprints of Neil Douglas Daniel. The fingerprints which appear on State’s Exhibit No. 45 are identical to those of the appellant as proved by the testimony of an expert witness during the trial of the instant case.
Although this evidence may not be as strong and complete as the evidence in the numerous cases cited in the majority opinion, I would hold that the identical cause number, name, and offense found in both exhibits were sufficient to show that the appellant was the same person convicted of the offense in Louisiana, and the trial court properly admitted in evidence State’s Exhibit No. 41 to prove the prior conviction of the appellant in Louisiana.
I dissent to the reversal of the judgment.