Trial in a Felony Assault FV case starts Monday and just learned that the defendant actually pleaded true to the charged offense in an MRP in another county.

The judgment revoking probation that contains the finding of true must be read in conjunction with the stipulation. Plus, its for an offense that is not admissible even if the defendant testifies.

Assuming the defendant does not testify, what is the solution to this problem? What predicte and foundation needs to be laid?

The stipulation (admission by party opponent) should be admissible if the defendant testifies, as presumably he will admit to making the prior statement. It should still be admissible and self-authenticating under TRE 902(4)in any event, but there will need to be independent proof of its relevance (i.e., that the document pertains to the defendant). Alternatively, the judgment may contain proof of identity and it together with the allegations in the MRP will likely prove the pertinent admission pertains to your offense.

The finding of true in the judgment, however, will not, by itself, constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the allegation in your indictment since a lesser burden of proof was utilized in the revocation proceeding, plus that judgment may not be final, and there is the corpus delicti rule to deal with.

It is unusual for someone to admit the new offense in connection with an MRP, especially without any agreement concerning the disposition of the new case (even if it is in another jurisdiction). So, I can only guess about the defense strategy in pleading not guilty in your case.

Thanks. From a practical stand point, I do not have any problems linking the defendant to the MRP. It's just circuitous getting there. The stipulation does not actually repeat the violation listed in the motion. Just that he stipulates to every allegation. The judgment revoking finds the allegation true and specifically refers to the new offense.My concern is that the court will not let us introduce a judgment for a DWI even if it contains an admission by a party. Without the judgment or MRP the stipulation has no context.

I assume your concern is under rule 403. If you can prove the judgment pertains to the defendant and contains information that is relevant to guilt, i.e., that the defendant previously judicially admitted the conduct alleged, then maybe certain portions get redacted (the overly prejudicial context of the admission), but you have satisfied 402 and 902 and 803(8) and a correct balancing under 403 yields a favorable admissibility determination as to the judgment and the motion referenced in the judgment becomes admissible under rule 107.

Jay, given the propensities of the system maybe nothing has happened yet; but, if and when you or the trial judge have resolved the issue it would likely be helpful for you to share the actual result. In fact, that would be a great practice for everyone who requests opinions on the forum, whenever possible.

It really turned out to be a non-issue. The defendant did not contest that that he was the same person referred to in the out of county judgment and we really didn't argue much over admissibility. The waiver, the Motion to revoke and the judment revoking were all admitted. The real argument concerned whether or not he really understood what he was admitting.