Opinion
No. 13-08-00308-CR
Delivered and filed August 31, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On appeal from the 105th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.
Before Chief Justice VALDEZ and Justices YAÑEZ and BENAVIDES.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Brian L. Fuller, appeals from a conviction for tampering with a governmental record. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.10(a)(5) (Vernon Supp. 2008). After a bench trial, the trial court found that Fuller made, used, or presented a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity with the intent to harm or defraud another, and sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment and imposed a $1,000 fine. See id. § 37.10(d)(3). Fuller appeals, asserting that (1) the trial court committed fundamental error by admitting unobjected-to hearsay; and (2) the evidence is legally and factually insufficient. We affirm.
I. Background
On August 19, 2006, Officer Patrick McMenemy observed a truck fail to stop while exiting the private driveway of an apartment complex. He stopped the vehicle, which was driven by Fuller. Upon the officer's request, Fuller presented his driver's license and an insurance card to Officer McMenemy. Officer McMenemy recognized the name of the insurance agent listed on the card, which made him suspicious of the validity of the insurance coverage allegedly represented by the card. He ultimately concluded the card was false. In his trial testimony, Officer McMenemy discussed how he arrived at the conclusion that the card was false. First, he noted that approximately one month before he stopped Fuller, his partner, Officer Uribe, performed a traffic stop during which he was presented with an insurance card from the same insurance agent, "W.B. Stanton Insurance Agency." Following Officer Uribe's investigation, that card was determined to be false. Officer McMenemy also stated that, to him, the card Fuller presented looked as though it was a photocopied blank form on which Fuller's information had been entered with a typewriter. He testified that "that's not what I normally see as a patrol officer from the insurance cards." Officer McMenemy called for another unit, and Officer Uribe, among others, arrived at the scene. All of the officers looked at the card Fuller had given to Officer McMenemy, and "went ahead and called the insurance company just to verify the 1-800 number and entered the automated policy and once we entered the policy number, they told us that it was an invalid policy." Fuller did not object to this hearsay. Following the phone call, Officer McMenemy compared the vehicle identification number on Fuller's truck and on the card. He discovered that the fourth character on the card did not match the fourth number on the vehicle: the card contained the letter "O," but the vehicle had the letter "D." Officer McMenemy advised Fuller of his Miranda rights, and Fuller agreed to speak with him. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). Officer McMenemy testified without objection that Fuller told him that "he purchased the papers, that they were fake," and from whom Fuller purchased them. Fuller executed a written statement, which Officer McMenemy read into the record. Fuller's written statement confirmed Fuller's source for the card and noted that he paid $25 for it. It also stated that the person who gave Fuller the card would take a "blank" copy and then would "type[ ] them out on a typewriter." Notably, Fuller's written statement does not contain any indication of his knowledge concerning the authenticity of the card, and the statement does not contain any affirmation that he knew the card was fake or that he had told Officer McMenemy that the card was fake. After reading Fuller's written statement into the record, in response to the State's questioning, Officer McMenemy testified that Fuller, in his written statement, "acknowledge[d] that he knew [the card was] forged. . . ." Fuller did not object to this mischaracterization of his written statement. Debbie Fuller, an office manager and Fuller's daughter, testified on his behalf. She noted that it was her job to arrange for liability insurance for her employer's company vehicles. As such, she reviews insurance cards similar to the card Fuller presented to Officer McMenemy. That card, she noted, looked "very, very similar to the ones that she downloads [from her company's liability insurance carrier] . . ." for use with her employer's vehicles. Fuller testified that, when he presented the card to Officer McMenemy, he did not know the card was false. He received the card from the people with whom he was staying. They told him that, for $25 a month, they could add him to their insurance. He paid, and he received an insurance card showing his truck as the covered vehicle. Fuller also stated that he did not intend to harm or defraud Officer McMenemy when he presented the card to the officer. He did not know the card was false until Officer McMenemy told him about the previous case wherein Officer Uribe determined a card listing the same agent's name was fake. On cross examination, Fuller stated that he did not call the insurance carrier to verify the card because "the people that I got this card from, he [sic] owned a septic tank business[,] and he [sic] said that he [sic] had a lot of insurance and [that] it wouldn't cost very much to add me on." On re-direct examination, Fuller testified that he had two prior felonies, had "been to T.D.C.," had been released in January of 2006, would not like going back to prison, and "would have [taken] a no insurance [ticket] in a heartbeat" instead of doing "something as stupid as presenting an officer with a false insurance card." The trial judge found Fuller guilty of tampering with a governmental record with the intent to harm or defraud another. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.10(a)(5), (d)(3). This appeal ensued.II. Unobjected-to Hearsay
In his first issue, Fuller argues that "[t]he trial court committed fundamental error by allowing hearsay as the only direct evidence of an element of the crime." See Tex. R. Evid. 103(d) ("In a criminal case, nothing in these rules precludes taking notice of fundamental errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court."). Section 37.10 of the penal code provides that a person commits the offense of "Tampering with [a] Government Record" if he "makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity." Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.10(a)(5). A "government record" includes "a standard proof of motor vehicle liability insurance form . . ., a certificate of an insurance company . . ., [or] a document purporting to be such a form or certificate that is not issued by an insurer authorized to write motor vehicle liability insurance [in Texas]. . . .," among other things. Id. § 37.01(2)(D) (Vernon Supp. 2008). Fuller asserts that the only evidence regarding whether the insurance card was a false government record was "the fact that an unknown officer ('we') called an insurance company's automated line and heard that the policy was invalid." Officer McMenemy testified that he contacted three other officers, including Officer Uribe. When all three arrived at the scene, they looked at the insurance card. "Upon looking at it, we went ahead and called the insurance company just to verify the 1-800 number and entered the automated policy [sic] and once we entered the policy number, they told us that it was an invalid policy." Fuller did not object to this testimony and now argues on appeal that "[w]hat a computer from the insurance company told the officers is" hearsay. See Tex. R. Evid. 801(d) ("'Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."). Under this issue, Fuller also argues that the "statement violates [his] constitutional right to confront witnesses, as set forth under Crawford." See Stringer v. State, 276 S.W.3d 95, 99 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2008, pet. granted) (noting that the Confrontation Clause "applies to 'witnesses' against the accused — in other words, those who 'bear testimony.' 'Testimony,' in turn, is typically '[a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.'") (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51 (2004) (internal citations omitted)). Fuller contends that he "should have had the opportunity to confront the agent of the insurance company to confirm or deny whether the policy was valid."A. Applicable Law
Depending on the specific right asserted, the general error preservation rule requires a party to present a timely, specific objection and obtain a ruling by the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 340-41 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (summarizing rule 33.1(a) and delineating "systemic requirements," "waivable rights," and "forfeitable rights"). Most evidentiary and procedural rights are "forfeitable," that is, the party must request them in order to exercise them, and the right is forfeited unless exercised. Mendez, 138 S.W.3d at 340-41. The general preservation rule applies to these rights. Id. at 341. "Systemic requirements" are not necessarily constitutional, but are most often "'laws affecting the jurisdiction of the courts,' specifically, jurisdiction of the subject and jurisdiction of the person," Id. (citing Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)). "Waivable rights" are those "'rights of litigants which must be implemented by the system unless expressly waived.'" Id. at 341; see Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (noting that "waivable rights" include the right to trial by jury and the right to assistance of counsel). Systemic requirements and waivable rights are generally referred to as "fundamental" and do not fall under the general preservation rule, i.e., they may be raised for the first time on appeal. Id. In Saldano, the court of criminal appeals stated, "[w]e have consistently held that the failure to object in a timely and specific manner during trial forfeits complaints about the admissibility of evidence. This is true even though the error may concern a constitutional right of the defendant." 70 S.W.3d at 889; see also Stearns v. State, No. 13-05-112-CR, 2007 WL 2142651, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi July 26, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). "[A]ll existing authority holds the admission of hearsay must be preserved with a timely and specific objection to the evidence." Moore v. State, 935 S.W.2d 124, 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (citing Tuner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423, 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (stating the general rule for error preservation)). To preserve error on confrontation clause grounds, the general preservation rule must be followed. Acevedo v. State, 255 S.W.3d 162, 173 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2008, pet. ref'd); see Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 535 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (holding that appellant waived his confrontation clause argument on appeal by not objecting on those grounds in the trial court); Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 752 n. 16 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (same) (citing Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918, 923 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (noting that constitutional error may be waived)). Fuller asks this Court to create an exception to the court of criminal appeals's jurisprudence by holding that, when the hearsay evidence, admitted without objection, is the only evidence regarding an element of the State's case and amounts to a violation of the confrontation clause, the error in admitting the evidence is fundamental and may be raised for the first time on appeal. We decline to do so.B. Analysis
Officer McMenemy's statement that "we went ahead and called the insurance company just to verify the 1-800 number and entered the automated policy [sic] and once we entered the policy number, they told us that it was an invalid policy" is certainly hearsay. See Tex. R. Evid. 801(d). What "they told us" was an out-of-court statement, offered to prove that the policy Fuller handed to Officer McMenemy was invalid, and thus a false government document. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.01(2)(D). Fuller was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine "they" to test the trustworthiness of the statement. See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51. Both arguments related to the admissibility of evidence, and the court of criminal appeals has "consistently held that the failure to object in a timely and specific manner during trial forfeits complaints about the admissibility of evidence. This is true even though the error may concern a constitutional right of the defendant." Saldano, 70 S.W.3d at 889. We adhere to court of criminal appeals's precedent and hold that the trial court did not commit fundamental error, and Fuller waived this issue by failing to object to this testimony in the trial court.III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
In his second issue, Fuller contends that the evidence is both legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's ruling.A. Standards of Review
When reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we examine all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979)). Without re-weighing the evidence or substituting our judgment for the fact-finder's, we review all of the evidence presented at trial. Utomi v. State, 243 S.W.3d 75, 78 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref'd) (citing King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We evaluate all of the evidence in the record, whether direct, circumstantial, admissible, or inadmissible. See Tottenham v. State, 285 S.W.3d 19, 25 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref'd) (citing Dewberry, 4 S.W.3d at 740). In a factual sufficiency review, we review the evidence in a neutral light. See Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699, 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We will set aside the verdict "only if the evidence supporting the verdict is so weak as to render the verdict clearly wrong or manifestly unjust" or the "verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence." Id. Giving deference to the fact-finder, we "must be cognizant of the fact that a [fact-finder] has already passed on the facts and must give due deference to the determinations of the [fact-finder]" in order to "avoid substituting [our] judgment for that of the [fact-finder]." Id. We will not reverse the fact-finder's decision unless, based upon some objective evidence in the record, we can say that the great weight and preponderance of the evidence contradicts the verdict. Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). "[W]e cannot conclude that a conviction is 'clearly wrong' or 'manifestly unjust' simply because, on the quantum of evidence admitted, we would have voted to acquit had we been" the fact-finder. Tottenham, 285 S.W.3d at 26 (quoting Watson, 204 S.W.3d at 417). We must also discuss the evidence that the appellant asserts most undermines the verdict. Id.B. Applicable Law
Both legal and factual sufficiency are measured by the elements of the crime as defined by the hypothetically correct jury charge. Malik v. State, 952 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Adi v. State, 94 S.W.3d 124, 131 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). The hypothetically correct charge accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily restrict the State's theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried. Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243, 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Malik, 953 S.W.2d at 240. Section 37.10(a)(5) of the penal code provides that a person commits the offense of tampering with a governmental record when that person "makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity. . . ." Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.10(a)(5). The punishment for tampering with a governmental record is elevated to a second-degree felony "if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is" a "standard proof of motor vehicle liability insurance form" when the "actor's intent in committing the offense was to defraud or harm another." Id. § 37.10(a)(5), (d)(2); see id. § 37.01(2)(D) (defining "governmental record" to include a "standard proof of motor vehicle liability insurance form"); Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 601.081 (Vernon 1999) (describing the required contents of a "standard proof of motor vehicle liability insurance form"). The penal code defines "knowledge" in the following manner:A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 6.03(b) (Vernon 2003). "A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result." Id. § 6.03(a). Therefore, to find Fuller guilty of the second-degree felony of tampering with a governmental record, the fact-finder must have found that Fuller: (1) made, used, or presented; (2) a governmental record; (3) with knowledge of its falsity; and (4) with the intent to harm or defraud another. See Tottenham, 285 S.W.3d at 27.