Joel Adam Hernandez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 22nd District Court of Hays County

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-94-00365-CR
Joel Adam Hernandez, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. CR-93-431, HONORABLE FRED MOORE, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

 

A jury found appellant guilty of aggravated robbery. Tex. Penal Code Ann. 29.03 (West 1994). (1) The district court assessed punishment at imprisonment for thirty years.

Appellant robbed the cashier of a San Marcos convenience store at gunpoint. The robbery was recorded on videotape by two surveillance cameras in the store. The store manager identified State's exhibits one and two as the videotapes in question. These exhibits were admitted in evidence without objection. Later, a San Marcos police officer testified that the two surveillance tapes were each eight hours long and, for the sake of convenience, he had reproduced on a third videotape the relevant portion of each surveillance tape. When this tape was offered in evidence as State's exhibit four, appellant objected on the ground of hearsay. The objection was overruled. In his sole point of error, appellant contends the district court erred by so ruling.

The content of a voluminous recording may be presented in the form of a summary. Tex. R. Crim. Evid. 1006. In such a case, the original must be made available for examination by the other party. Id. A duplicate recording is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or if it would be unfair to admit the duplicate under the circumstances. Tex. R. Crim. Evid. 1003. No question as to the authenticity of the original videotapes was raised at trial and they were available for examination by appellant. Having failed to object to the admission of the original videotapes on hearsay grounds, appellant waived any hearsay objection to the excerpts taken from the originals and reproduced in summary form on exhibit four. The point of error is overruled.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

Before Justices Powers, Kidd and B. A. Smith

Affirmed

Filed: April 12, 1995

Do Not Publish

1. After this offense was committed, section 29.03 was amended in a nonsubstantive way.