Bruton v. State
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 638
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant (Peter Cain Bruton) was convicted in Texas; at punishment the State introduced three UK-origin documents (State's Exhibits 13–15) purporting to show prior convictions in Norwich: certificates of conviction and letters, an Interpol/fingerprint printout, and a Norfolk Constabulary conviction-history printout with a cover letter.
- Defense objected at a hearing that the foreign documents were not properly authenticated, were hearsay, and were not satisfactorily tied to appellant; complained exhibits lacked required certifications, seals, or final diplomatic/consular legalization and contained some inaccuracies.
- Trial court admitted all three exhibits, treating Exhibit 13 as certified and finding either certification or good cause for Exhibits 14 and 15; fingerprint evidence linked Exhibit 14 to appellant.
- On appeal the court of appeals reversed, holding none of Exhibits 13–15 had the final certification required by Tex. R. Evid. 902(3), and that the State failed to show good cause to dispense with that requirement; it also analyzed 902(4) and found deficiencies.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and held that none of the exhibits were accompanied by the Rule 902(3) final certification (by specified diplomatic/consular officials) and the State failed to establish good cause for dispensing with the requirement; accordingly it affirmed the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Appellant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the UK documents were self‑authenticating under Tex. R. Evid. 902(3) or (4) | Exhibits bear indicia of authenticity (official signatures/seals, case numbers, matching DOB, occupation, Norwich address) and Exhibit 15’s letter explains lack of a formal stamp; good cause exists to treat records as authentic | Documents lack the required final certification by a diplomatic/consular official; State pieced together disparate, uncertified materials and failed to link them reliably to appellant | Held: None of the exhibits had the final certification required by 902(3); State did not show good cause to dispense with that requirement, so admission was improper under 902(3)/(4) |
| Whether the 902(3) final‑certification requirement may be satisfied by non‑diplomatic officials or by internal stamps | The documents were attested/issued by UK court/constabulary officials and thus sufficiently authenticated; chain of documents and prior delivery to defense support authenticity | Final certification must be by specified diplomatic/consular officials; internal stamps or local officers do not substitute | Held: Final certification must be by the enumerated diplomatic/consular officials (or an authorized chain culminating in such); internal stamps/letters are insufficient |
| Whether "good cause" under 902(3) permits dispensing with final certification | Good cause exists where recipient had documents in advance and no defense challenge, and where foreign agency lacks a conventional stamp | Good cause cannot be presumed; must be shown that party tried and failed to obtain final certification | Held: "Good cause" requires showing reason for failing to obtain final certification despite reasonable efforts; State offered no attempt or excuse, so good cause not shown |
| Whether the uncertified Exhibit 14 (computer/Interpol printout) was the linchpin for linking appellant to foreign convictions | State contended fingerprint evidence and corroborating details across exhibits tied records to appellant | Appellant noted late disclosure of Exhibit 14 and asserted the State relied on it at trial but failed to authenticate it properly | Held: Court affirmed that Exhibit 14 lacked required certification and that absence of final certification and lack of good‑cause showing rendered the ensemble of documents inadmissible under 902(3)/(4) |
Key Cases Cited
- Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (principles for construing court rules)
- Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (statutory/analytical background cited)
- United States v. Howard‑Arias, 679 F.2d 363 (4th Cir. 1982) (Rule 902 purpose: guard against forgery; attestation/execution analysis)
- United States v. Deverso, 518 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2008) (treatment of attestations and need for proper certification)
- Jordan‑Maier v. State, 792 S.W.2d 188 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1990) (recognition that final certification must be made by diplomatic/consular official)