I've got a felony DWI case pending grand jury in which Dallas County only sent us computer printouts, not judgments. They are labeled "Judicial Information", "Charge", and "Disposition" and are certified as true and correct copies. I think I recall a recent case in which a court said it was OK to prove prior DWI convictions without actually having the judgments, but I can't find the case.

Any help with the citation or thoughts would be appreciated.

We recently received similar lame paperwork from Dallas. Seems that they destroy original judgments and only have computerized records in some form other than judgments.

The Rules of Evidence identify judgments as an easy exception to the hearsay rule, making proof of a prior conviction simple with such paperwork. But, computerized entries could also qualify as hearsay exceptions under other rules (business records, etc.).

I find it hard to believe that original records were destroyed without at least making digital copies that could be produced when requested. But, as I say, that's the answer we got recently in a DWI case with Dallas priors.

[This message was edited by JB on 02-07-09 at .]

I have the case citation at work (be back there on Monday); it came out of one of our cases in Denton. Basically:

Dallas' computer printout (certified) combined with an entry on the defendant's DL pack (certified/self-authenticating document) is enough to prove the DWI prior. Entry on the DL pack needs to contain enough information (conviction date or cause number) to link it to Dallas' printout...

Couldn't wait until Monday. Here's the case - Flowers v. State

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=tx&vol=app/15280&invol=1

Thanks for the help.

OCD flaring up on you again, Brent?

I give up. Everytime I see a legal question that can be answered by my case law update Brent has already answered it.

I gave a speech at last years District Clerk seminar regarding records and evidence retention. In that lecture, and among other things, I urged them NOT to destroy any judgements and sentences without digitally preserving them. I also expressed the opinion that it was neither a good idea or fair to destroy any biological evidence that could, in the future, either confirm guilt or support an innocence finding through DNA testing.

Judging from the comments I received back, many clerks did not appreciate the substance of my talk. I got comments like "You don't know how much it costs to keep this stuff" and "my commissioner's court doesn't want to give me money for storing these items".

I explained at length why we need to retain the items. The repeat offender, being first and foremost. I further spoke at great length about whether "they want to be that guy" on the news explaining why biological evidence from a trial was not retained for future guilt/innocence DNA testing.

I didn't get an invite to return this year.

Ryan - OCD is ALWAYS kicking in.

Richard - Had I not remembered it was a Denton case, I surely would have referred Jeff to your outstanding Case Law Update.

Greg,

What you had was a failure to communicate.

You thought the district clerk's job is to file and safeguard the court's convictions, etc., so that there is always a record that can be used to enhance repeat offenders, thus protecting the citizens of the state.

The district clerks see their job as moving paper from the in-tray to the out-tray.

Had you given a speech that showed them how to make their jobs easier, and to do it more cheaply, you would probably have been invited back this year. Had you proposed shredding all court documents 30 days after sentencing, for example, you would have given them an idea that would greatly cut down their hassle factor, and save them a ton of storage and filing costs. Had you had the foresight to make such a proposal, you'd probably have been the keynote speaker this year.

Live and learn.

What if the Counties who DO have (and retain) "good" judgments started sending "So sorry, can't find any records" responses to those Counties who seem to constantly have problems locating and mailing judgments.... (Before anyone takes this out of context - NO I'm not serious...)

In all seriousness, though - I am SO tired of having a DWI #4, 5, 6, or 7 and having to refer it to misdemeanor as a 1st or a 2nd because we can't get/prove priors.

Why not ask the Leg to create a statewide database for prior convictions? This would increase the accuracy of prosecutions, thereby avoiding wrongful enhancements.

Why not amend the Government Code to require clerks' offices to retain records of offenses that are specifically enhanceable on subsequent allegations of the same type of offense (DWI, BOV, theft, etc.), while keeping the existing retention policies for other offenses?

Since Dallas seems to be the largest county mentioned that handles their prior judgments this way, is there a Dallas prosecutor out there who can tell us what your routine method is for proving up priors in these circumstances? Do your judges simply accept the printout as evidence or do they require more than that?

In a related note, I convinced my Senator to introduce SB 566. If it passes, the TDL and the DOB of the defendant will be added to the judgment, which will make identification easier without having to contend with a smudged fingerprint.