business record exception in Texas

2011Brooks v. State, 901 S.W.2d 742, 746 (Tex.App. -- Fort Worth 1995, pet. ref'd).

2011Brooks v. State, 901 S.W.2d 742, 746 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995, pet. refd).

2015See Montoya v. State, 43 S.W.3d 568, 570-71 (Tex. App.--Waco 2001, no pet.) (holding that a 911 tape was properly authenticated and admissible when the custodian testified that the tape was made in the ordinary course of business and was made at or near the time of the event recorded).

2005Montoya v. State , 43 S.W.3d 568, 571 (Tex. App.-Waco 2001, no pet.).

2011See id.

2011See id.

2006See State v. Foltin, 930 S.W.2d 270, 272-73 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied).

2006See State v. Foltin, 930 S.W.2d 270, 272-73 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied).

2018Id.

2000See Gaitan v. State, 905 S.W.2d 703, 708 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd) ( citing Cole v. State , 839 S.W.2d 798, 810-11 (Tex. Crim.

2013See Freeman, 53 S.W.3d at 715 (citing the fact that a record was dated ―over 10 years after the cause of action accrued and a mere 10 days before the summary[-]judgment hearing‖ to conclude that it was prepared in anticipation of litigation and thus inadmissible as a business record under rule 803(6)).

2012Ryland cites Freeman v. American Motorists Insurance Co., 53 S.W.3d 710 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.), to support its argument that the invoice “was essentially a falsehood presented to the jury as ‘evidence.’” In Freeman, this Court held that a doctor’s letter submitted to a 31 party’s attorney in the course of litigation did not qualify as a routine entry in the patient’s medical history and was, therefore, inadmissible under the business- record exception to the hearsay rule. 53 S.W.3d at 714–15.

2004Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 815 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990). 2 .

2004Idaho v. Wright , 497 U.S. 805, 815 (1990). 2.

2025April 2 The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that if the proper predicate is laid then the business record exception to the rule against hearsay applies and a witness without personal knowledge of the events recorded “could testify from probation departments records.” Simmons v. State, 564 S.W.2d 769, 770 (Tex. Crim.

2024See Craven v. State, 579 S.W.3d 784, 786-87 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (Finding that an objection made on hearsay grounds does not preserve a Confrontation Clause complaint on appeal.) At trial, the defense objected to the surveillance video marked State’s Exhibit 2 because it was hearsay and the business record exception was not satisfied.

2023See Castillo v. State, 71 S.W.3d 812 , 818–19 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, pet. ref’d) (recognizing that abuse of discretion standard of review applied to a complaint that the offering party failed to lay a proper predicate for an autopsy report to qualify for the business-record exception to the hearsay -4- 04-22-00161-CR rule); Thomas v. State, 309 S.W.3d 576, 578 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d) (“We review a trial court’s designation of an outcry witness under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” (citing Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88, 92 (Tex. Crim.

2023See Castillo v. State, 71 S.W.3d 812 , 818–19 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, pet. ref’d) (recognizing that abuse of discretion standard of review applied to a complaint that the offering party failed to lay a proper predicate for an autopsy report to qualify for the business-record exception to the hearsay -4- 04-22-00161-CR rule); Thomas v. State, 309 S.W.3d 576, 578 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d) (“We review a trial court’s designation of an outcry witness under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” (citing Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88, 92 (Tex. Crim.

2023See Castillo v. State, 71 S.W.3d 812 , 818–19 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, pet. ref’d) (recognizing that abuse of discretion standard of review applied to a complaint that the offering party failed to lay a proper predicate for an autopsy report to qualify for the business-record exception to the hearsay -4- 04-22-00161-CR rule); Thomas v. State, 309 S.W.3d 576, 578 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d) (“We review a trial court’s designation of an outcry witness under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” (citing Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88, 92 (Tex. Crim.

2021See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 285 (Tex. 2002); Nat’l Liab. & Fire Ins.

2019While the business record exception requires an affidavit, the State used the live testimony of Lewis to authenticate the 911 call as allowed by rule 901(b)(6). 4 Bob argues that because the trial court failed to authenticate the audiotapes, “error has been committed and [the] error [is] of such a magnitude as to warrant a reversal of these proceedings and a remand of this case[.]” “[A]ny error in admitting the evidence was harmless in light of other properly admitted evidence proving the same fact.” Brooks v. State, 990 S.W.2d 278, 287 (Tex. Crim.

2008But it has a lot of information in there that is not necessarily determined to be business records . . . and would be hearsay.” 15: See Jones v. State , 843 S.W.2d 487, 492 (Tex. Crim.

2008Consequently, applying an abuse of discretion standard, 4 we hold that each of the exhibits was properly admitted as a business record under rule 803(6).5 The original indictments are public records and would have been admissible under rule 803(8).6 The fact that the exhibits were copies of the 4 … See Coffin v. State, 885 S.W.2d 140, 149 (Tex. Crim.

2007See Tex.R.Evid. 803(6); Tex.R.Evid. 1006; see also Black Lake Pipe Line Co. , 538 S.W.2d at 92 .

2005It also asserts that the reports contain no explanation of the doctor’s training, experience, or ability to come to such conclusions, no causal connections, and merely recite the “magic words.” In support of this argument, SORM directs us to Hooper v. Towes, 790 S.W.2d 757, 759-760 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1990, writ denied).

2003See LaFreniere v. Fitzgerald , 669 S.W.2d 117, 118-19 (Tex. 1984) (holding canceled checks admissible as business records ).

2000See Gaitan v. State, 905 S.W.2d 703, 708 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd) ( citing Cole v. State , 839 S.W.2d 798, 810-11 (Tex. Crim.

1997See id. at 11 (citing United States v. Cain, 615 F.2d 380, 381-82 (5th Cir.1980)).

1997See id. at 11 (citing United States v. Cain, 615 F.2d 380, 381-82 (5th Cir.1980)).