Preview:

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 99-K-3612 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. LEE EDWARD DONALD

On Writ of Certiorari to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal

PER CURIAM: Over a century ago, the Supreme Court observed in Jacksonville, M., P. Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Hooper, 160 U.S. 514, 518-19, 16 S.Ct. 379, 381, 40 L.Ed. 515 (1896) that "[a] seal is not necessarily of any particular form or figure . . . . Whether a mark or character shall be held to be a seal depends upon the intention of the executant, as shown by the paper." In the present case, the Second Circuit acknowledged that a booking and identification record used at trial to identify respondent as a previously convicted felon bore an official stamp of the Los Angeles Police Department, and that "the substance of the document may be considered trustworthy and clearly admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule for public documents, La.C.E. art. 803(8)[.]" State v. Donald,

32,415 pp. 6-7 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 10/27/99), 745 So.2d 144, 148-49 (Brown, J., dissenting). The court of appeal

nevertheless concluded that the stamp did not constitute a "seal" for purposes of La.C.E. art. 902(1) governing the selfauthentication of documents, and that the trial court

therefore erred in admitting the document into evidence.

Id.

The Second Circuit's decision rested in part on a definition of a public seal as '"[a]n impression made of some device, by means of a piece of metal or other hard substance, kept and used by public authority.'" Donald, 32-415 at 6, 745 So.2d at We

149 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990)).

granted the state's application and reverse the decision below because the court of appeal adopted an overly technical approach to the authenti-fication of public records under La.C.E. art. 902 which conflicts with the mandate of La.C.E. art. 102 that "[t]hese articles shall be construed to secure fairness and efficiency in administration of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined." The state charged respondent as a previously convicted felon of possession of a firearm in violation of La.R.S. 14:95.1. In response to the state's motion in limine, the

trial court conducted a pre-trial hearing to determine the admissibility of documents from California relating to respondent's conviction in Los Angles County for voluntary manslaughter in 1985. The documents included a Booking and

Identification Record subsequently introduced at trial as state's exhibit S-2. On the face of the document is an inked

thumbprint of an Edward Lee Donald arrested on December 14, 1984, for murder. On the back of the exhibit is a stamp

attesting that "[t]his is a certified copy of the document filed in the Lost Angles Police Department's Records & Identification Division." dated. The certificate is signed and

Next to this certificate is a circular inked stamp of

the Los Angles Police Department with its motto, "To protect and To Serve." Defense counsel objected at the hearing that 2

the originals of the documents, and not copies, should have been provided and that not every page in the state's submission, which also included court records of the proceedings against respondent culminating in his conviction for voluntary manslaughter, was individually certified. However, counsel did not otherwise dispute the state's assertion that the documents were "under seal from the Los Angles Police Department." The trial court ruled that the

documents were "properly authenticated under the Code of evidence," and at trial the state's fingerprint expert used the booking record to identify respondent after taking his fingerprints in open court. Although defense counsel's

objection to the California documents did not specifically target the adequacy of the seal placed on the Booking and Identification Record, the court of appeal considered the issue adequately preserved and reversed the trial court's ruling according to its own appreciation of what Louisiana law requires for the self-authentication of public records. La.C.E. art. 904 provides that "[w]hen an original public document is deemed authentic without proof by extrinsic evidence as provided in Article 902(1), (2), or (3), a purported copy of the document also shall be deemed authentic when certified as true or correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make that certification, by certificate complying with Article 902(1),(2), or (3)." La.C.E. 902(1)

sets forth two requirements for admitting public records from other jurisdictions without extrinsic evidence of authenticity. The document must reflect: (1) "a seal

purporting to be that of the United States, or of any state . . . or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof," and (2) "a signature purporting to be an 3

attestation or execution."

Neither La.C.E. art. 902 nor any

other provision in the Code of Evidence specifically defines a seal. Louisiana's statutory law is replete with references to seals, some of which are partially descriptive of raised or embossed impressions. See, e.g., La. R.S. 13:4 ("The clerks

of the Supreme Court and the several courts in the parish of Orleans each shall have a seal containing the vignette of the state seal . . . . Embossed under the court's name shall be

the scales of justice supported by the Louisiana Pelican with its young . . . ."); La.R.S. 9:226(B) ("A person born outside of Louisiana may submit a copy of his birth certificate under the raised seal or stamp of the vital statistics registration authority of his place of birth."). However, unlike other

jurisdictions, Louisiana law lacks a general definition of the term. At the federal level, for example, 18 U.S.C.

Download 1999-K-3612 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. LEE EDWARD DONALD.pdf

Louisiana Law