From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Islam v. State

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Jun 26, 2017
No. 05-16-00881-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 26, 2017)

Opinion

No. 05-16-00881-CR

06-26-2017

MOHAMMAD DABIRUL ISLAM, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1345960-J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Brown, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Francis

Mohammad Dabirul Islam appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years of age. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in refusing to admit a copy of his mother-in-law's passport into evidence. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Appellant was accused of sexually assaulting F.Y. while she was being cared for by his family in his apartment. In a trial before the court, F.Y. testified she believed the abuse took place in the spring or early summer of 2008. F.Y. further testified she remembered appellant's mother-in-law sometimes being in the apartment and that the mother-in-law was present during one of the instances of abuse.

As part of his defense, appellant offered into evidence a copy of his mother-in-law's Bangladeshi passport. Appellant argues the passport shows his mother-in-law was out of the country for "much of" 2008, though he does not contend it shows she was out of the country during the time period F.Y. said the abuse took place. The State objected to admission of the passport copy on the grounds of hearsay and improper authentication. Appellant responded that the copy was of an official government document "stamped by individuals who would have knowledge at the time of the offense, it's also a business record." Appellant further argued "because governments of two different countries are the ones that control the access to and from this country that any official stamp is an official government swearing that this is a true and correct document, and I would believe it to be admissible." The trial court sustained the State's objection and denied appellant's request to admit the copy.

Appellant contends the trial court's refusal to admit the copy of his mother-in-law's passport was error. We review a trial court's decision regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. See Johnson v. State, 490 S.W.3d 895, 908 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). A trial judge abuses his discretion if his decision falls outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Id. If the ruling is correct under any theory of law, it will not be disturbed even if the trial court gave a wrong or insufficient reason for the ruling. Id.

Appellant argues the passport copy was admissible under Texas Rule of Evidence 1003 which provides that a "duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a question is raised about the original's authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate." See TEX. R. EVID. 1003. Rule 1003 is a "best evidence" rule, however, and does not provide an independent basis for admissibility. See Halstead v. State, 891 S.W.2d 11, 12 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994, no pet.). Because a duplicate is admissible only to the same extent as an original, the proponent must still authenticate the copy in the same manner as he would be required to authenticate the original. To conclude otherwise would allow a party to circumvent the authentication requirement by simply submitting a copy.

The State clearly objected to admission of the passport copy on the ground that the document had not been authenticated. Appellant was required to authenticate the document under either rule 901 or 902 of the rules of evidence. See Hull v. State, 172 S.W.3d 186, 189 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005 pet. ref'd). Appellant makes no argument on appeal that the document was properly authenticated under either of those rules. Accordingly, appellant has failed to show the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit the evidence at issue. We resolve appellant's sole issue against him.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

/Molly Francis/

MOLLY FRANCIS

JUSTICE Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1
160881F.U05

JUDGMENT

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1345960-J.
Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. Justices Brown and Schenck participating.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered June 26, 2017.


Summaries of

Islam v. State

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Jun 26, 2017
No. 05-16-00881-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 26, 2017)
Case details for

Islam v. State

Case Details

Full title:MOHAMMAD DABIRUL ISLAM, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

Date published: Jun 26, 2017

Citations

No. 05-16-00881-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 26, 2017)