green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 7×
66.6 score
“ppellant lodged a hearsay objection, not an objection to a violation of confrontation. the two are neither synonymous nor necessarily coextensive. . . . no error on the basis of violation of confrontation was as yet preserved.”
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Horton v. State
in our discretionary review capacity we review 'decisions' of the court of appeals.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
James Larry Merrit v. State
when the state proffers an out-of-court statement of a child witness pursuant to article 38.072, ... it is incumbent upon the accused to object on the basis of confrontation and/or due process and due course of law.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Burks, Antwain Maurice
in our discretionary review capacity we review 'decisions' of the courts of appeals.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
David Lee Kelly v. State
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
it would thus appear that appellant waived any claim that admission of the out-of-court statement of the child in this cause violated his right to confrontation.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Victorino Betancourt v. State
it would thus appear that appellant waived any claim that admission of the out-of-court statement of the child in this cause violated his right to confrontation.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Cortez
in our discretionary review capacity we review 'decisions' of the court of appeals.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ray Vincent Vallejo v. State
ppellant lodged a hearsay objection, not an objection to a violation of confrontation. the two are neither synonymous nor necessarily coextensive. . . . no error on the basis of violation of confrontation was as yet preserved.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jirou Zachere Jr. v. the State of Texas
App. 2008); Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700-01 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Omar I. Lara v. the State of Texas
App. 2002); Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700-01 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walter Cortez v. State
At trial, appellant objected solely on hearsay grounds. “[A] hearsay objection is not sufficient to preserve error on a confrontation claim.” Neal v. State, 186 S.W.3d 690, 692 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.) (citing Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ricky Lee Murray v. State
App. 2018); Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Calvert, James
App. 2008) (holding that an untimely objection, made after the question was asked and answered, did not preserve error). 202 See Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Leonard Earl White-Williams v. State
Acevedo, 255 S.W.3d at 173 (citing Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Raul Romo Jr. v. State
Holland v State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); Matter of P.M., 543 S.W.3d 365, 375 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2018, no pet.).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Curtis Villareal v. State
App. 2002); Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re P.M.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Otherwise, the confrontation objection is a valid one and should be sustained , irrespective of whether the State has satisfied all of the statutory predicate for admissibility of hearsay under Article 38.072, supra. Holland , 802 S.W.2d at 699-700 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles Ray Diaz v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Constitutional objections and evidentiary objections “are neither synonymous nor necessarily coextensive.” Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sharper v. State
See Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 , 314 n. 3, 129 S.Ct. 2527 , 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009); Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). 3 The record in this case shows that the alleged accomplice, Markus Stephenson, attempted to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. 4 After the trial court ordered Stephenson to answer those questions that did not place him in jeopardy, he consistently answered that he did not remember being inter viewed and answering questions regarding his and Sharper’s involvement in the murder of Olivares.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kevin Ramon Gray v. State
This is because a hearsay objection and a Confrontation Clause objection “are neither synonymous nor necessarily coextensive.” Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jonathan Baker v. State
Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith, Fredrichee Douglas
Because the court of appeals has not passed on the question of whether the admission of the extraneous offense testimony was harmless error, we must remand this case to that court so it can fulfill the function constitutionally assigned to it by the citizens of this state."); Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 701 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith, Fredrichee Douglas
Because the court of appeals has not passed on the question of whether the admission of the extraneous offense testimony was harmless error, we must remand this case to that court so it can fulfill the function constitutionally assigned to it by the citizens of this state.”); Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 701 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Devin Dasean Simmons v. State
App. Houston 1st Dist. 2006 rev. ref.), citing Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tx.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ronald J. Coleman v. State
App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Raphael John Donato v. State
See id.; Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sonny Thomas Griffith v. State
See Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 , 314 n.3 (2009); Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gerald P. VanPatten v. State of Indiana
(2×)
Stat. § 5/115-10); Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 701 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (upholding Tex.Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gerald Hal Barnett v. State
Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 535 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004); Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918, 924 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428, 434 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009); Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); Mallory v. State, 752 S.W.2d 566, 569 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher Mark Brewer v. State
Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sanchez v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
While the lower court’s opinion is somewhat ambiguous regarding the setting of the appellant’s objection, our opinion explains that it came during a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, at which the outcry witness explained the time, content, and circumstances of the outcry (i.e., an Article 38.072 hearing). 802 S.W.2d, at 698. 32 . 770 S.W.2d, at 59 . 33 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sanchez, Ivan William
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
While the lower court's opinion is somewhat ambiguous regarding the setting of the appellant's objection, our opinion explains that it came during a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, at which the outcry witness explained the time, content, and circumstances of the outcry ( i.e. , an Article 38.072 hearing). 802 S.W.2d, at 698. 32. 770 S.W.2d, at 59 . 33.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ashley Malone Spikes v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that article 38.072, in some instances, can “operate either to deprive an accused of his constitutional right to confront the out-of-court child declarant, or to compel him to call the child to the stand himself in order to attain that right, in violation of due process and due course of law.” Holland v. State , 802 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Michael Reckart v. State
EVID . 103; Rosas v. State, 76 S.W.3d 771, 776-77 (Tex. App.–Houston [1 Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (citing Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 699-700 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Michael Reckart v. State
Evid. 103; Rosas v. State, 76 S.W.3d 771, 776-77 (Tex. App.-Houston [1 Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (citing Holland v. State , 802 S.W.2d 696, 699-700 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reckart v. State
Evid. 103; Rosas v. State, 76 S.W.3d 771, 776-77 (Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (citing Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 699-700 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Beckham v. State, 29 S.W.3d 148, 153 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (holding complaints that article 38.072 violates confrontation rights under federal constitution require objection to preserve error)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William Whittington Roberts v. State of Texas
App. 1996) (holding that erroneous admission of hearsay is not fundamental error and must be preserved at trial); Holland v. State , 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William Whittington Roberts v. State of Texas
App. 1996) (holding that erroneous admission of hearsay is not fundamental error and must be preserved at trial); Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Powell
(2×)
E.g., Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348 , 353 n. 9 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Lee v. State, 791 S.W.2d 141, 142 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); Hol land v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700-01 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Stringer v. State, 241 S.W.3d 52, 59 (Tex.Crim.App.2007); George E.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Texas v. Powell, Robert Leahy
App. 1990); Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700-01 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Texas v. Powell, Robert Leahy
App. 1990); Holland v. State , 802 S.W.2d 696, 700-01 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Barry Hunter Davis v. State
App. P. 33.1; Holland v. State , 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donald F. Davis v. State
Holland v. State , 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (en banc) (holding that appellant's hearsay objection did not preserve claim that evidence violated appellant's right of confrontation); Thacker v. State , 999 S.W.2d 56, 61 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd) (emphasizing that hearsay objections and objections to violations of the constitutional right of confrontation are not synonymous; thus, appellant's failure to object on the basis of the confrontation clause waived appellant's right to confront witnesses); Saldivar v. State , 980 S.W.2d 475, 496 (Tex.App.–Houston…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donald F. Davis v. State
Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (en banc) (holding that appellant's hearsay objection did not preserve claim that evidence violated appellant's right of confrontation); Thacker v. State, 999 S.W.2d 56, 61 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd) (emphasizing that hearsay objections and objections to violations of the constitutional right of confrontation are not synonymous; thus, appellant's failure to object on the basis of the confrontation clause waived appellant's right to confront witnesses); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475, 496 (Tex.App.–Houston [1…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donald F. Davis v. State
Holland v. State , 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (en banc) (holding that appellant's hearsay objection did not preserve claim that evidence violated appellant's right of confrontation); Thacker v. State , 999 S.W.2d 56, 61 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd) (emphasizing that hearsay objections and objections to violations of the constitutional right of confrontation are not synonymous; thus, appellant's failure to object on the basis of the confrontation clause waived appellant's right to confront witnesses); Saldivar v. State , 980 S.W.2d 475, 496 (Tex.App.-Houston [14…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hughen, Jeffery Daniel
App. 1990); Holland v. State , 802 S.W.2d 696, 700-01 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hughen, Jeffery Daniel
App. 1990); Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700-01 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hughen v. State
E.g., Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348 , 353 n. 9 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Lee v. State, 791 S.W.2d 141, 142 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); Hol land v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 700-01 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Stringer v. State, 241 S.W.3d 52, 59 (Tex.Crim.App.2007); George E.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lamar Dunta Perkins v. State
App. P. 33.1; Holland v. State , 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Teobaldo Figueroa Velazquez v. State
Holland v. State , 802 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee,
v.
W.S. BARBER, Et Al., Appellants
v.
W.S. BARBER, Et Al., Appellants
1075-89.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan 30, 1991.
Rex Houston, J. Mitchell Beard, Harry Heard, Longview, for appellants., David Brabham, Dist. Atty., and C. Patrice Savage, John W. Tunnell & R. Clement Dunn, Asst. Dist. Attys., Longview, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
McCormick, White, Campbell, Maloney.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Texas (1) · Court of Criminal Appeals of T… (1)
OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
A jury convicted appellants of engaging in organized crime. The court assessed punishment at five years confinement. The Court of Appeals reversed appellants’ convictions on sufficiency grounds. Barber v. State, 668 S.W.2d 424 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1984). We reversed that ruling and remanded the cause for consideration of appellants’ remaining points of error. The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed appellants’ convictions after concluding that the State failed to rebut the presumption of harm arising from an improper jury separation under former Tex. Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 35.23 (amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 825, § 1, eff. September 1, 1989). Barber v. State, 773 S.W.2d 631 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1989). The State petitioned this Court for review which was granted on September 27, 1989.
We have reconsidered the issue raised and find that the Court of Appeals reached the correct result. We decline to comment on the language or reasoning of the lower court. The State’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted and is accordingly dismissed.