impression hearing in Texas

2025This rule “is designed to reduce the possibility of the jury receiving 26 a false impression from hearing only a part of some act, conversation, or writing.” Pena, 353 S.W.3d at 814 (quoting Walters, 247 S.W.3d at 218 ).

2024“It is designed to reduce the possibility of the jury receiving a false impression from hearing only a part of some act, conversation, or writing.” Id.

2018“The purpose of [rule 107] is to reduce the possibility of the jury receiving a false impression from hearing only a part of some act, conversation, or writing.” Credille v. State, 925 S.W.2d 112, 116 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref’d).

2015The Court relied on Credille v. State, 925 S.W.2d 112 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ ref'd), for the propositions that "when a portion of a videotaped conversation is inquired into by the defense, the State is entitled to offer any other evidence that is necessary to make the conversation fully understood," and that, "under Rule 107, the State is entitled to admission of a complainant's videotaped statement when (l) the defense attorney asks questions concerning some of the complainant's statements on the videotape, (2) the defense attorney's questions leave the possibility of the

2025This rule “is designed to reduce the possibility of the jury receiving 26 a false impression from hearing only a part of some act, conversation, or writing.” Pena, 353 S.W.3d at 814 (quoting Walters, 247 S.W.3d at 218 ).

2024This rule is “designed to reduce the possibility of the jury receiving a false impression from hearing only a part of some act, conversation, or writing.” Pena, 353 S.W.3d at 814 (quoting Walters, 247 S.W.3d at 218 ).

2015This Court distinguished Credille by pointing out that the defense in that case "pointed to specific statements made by the complainant during the interview which, taken out of context, could indeed have created the possibility of the jury receiving a false impression from hearing only a part of some act, conversation, or writing." Id. at 123 (citations and internal quotations omitted).

2015This Court distinguished Credille by pointing out that the defense in that case "pointed to specific statements made by the complainant during the interview which, taken out of context, could indeed have created the possibility of the jury receiving a false impression from hearing only a part of some act, conversation, or writing." Id. at 123 (citations and internal quotations omitted).

2015The purpose of the rule “is to reduce the possibility of the jury’s receiving a false impression from hearing only a part of some act, conversation, or writing.” Tovar v. State, 221 S.W.3d 185, 190 (Tex. App.-- Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

2015The purpose of the rule "is to reduce the possibility of the jury's receiving a false impression from hearing only a part of some act, conversation, or writing." Tovar v. State, 221 S.W.3d 185, 190 (Tex. App.- Houston [lst Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

2006The purpose of the rule of optional completeness is to “reduce the possibility of the fact finder receiving a false impression from hearing the evidence of only part of an act.” See Kinnamon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 84, 101 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (citing Evans v. State, 643 S.W.2d 157, 161 (Tex.App.1982)), overruled on other grounds by Cook v. State, 884 S.W.2d 485, 491 (Tex.Crim.App.1994).

2006The purpose of the rule of optional completeness is to "reduce the possibility of the fact finder receiving a false impression from hearing the evidence of only part of an act." See Kinnamon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 84, 101 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (citing Evans v. State, 643 S.W.2d 157, 161 (Tex.App.1982)), overruled on other grounds by Cook v. State, 884 S.W.2d 485, 491 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994).

2003In such a case, the remainder of the statement "on the same subject" is admissible to "reduce the possibility of the fact finder receiving a false impression from hearing the evidence of only a part of the . . . writing." Roman v. State , 503 S.W.2d 252, 253 (Tex. Crim.

2003In such a case, the remainder of the statement “on the same subject” is admissible to "reduce the possibility of the fact finder receiving a false impression from hearing the evidence of only a part of the . . . writing.” Roman v. State, 503 S.W.2d 252, 253 (Tex. Crim.

2004The Credille defense pointed to specific statements made by the complainant during the interview which, taken out of context, could indeed have created "the possibility of the jury receiving a false impression from hearing only a part of some act, conversation, or writing." Id. at 116 , citing Solano v. State, 728 S.W.2d 428, 430-31 (Tex.App.-San Antonio, 1987, pet. ref'd).

2004The Credille defense pointed to specific statements made by the complainant during the interview which, taken out of context, could indeed have created “the possibility of the jury receiving a false impression from hearing only a part of some act, conversation, or writing.” Id. at 116 , citing Solano v. State, 728 S.W.2d 428, 430-31 (Tex.App.-San Antonio, 1987, pet. ref'd).

2006The purpose of the rule of optional completeness is to “reduce the possibility of the fact finder receiving a false impression from hearing the evidence of only part of an act.” See Kinnamon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 84, 101 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (citing Evans v. State, 643 S.W.2d 157, 161 (Tex.App.1982)), overruled on other grounds by Cook v. State, 884 S.W.2d 485, 491 (Tex.Crim.App.1994).

2006The purpose of the rule of optional completeness is to "reduce the possibility of the fact finder receiving a false impression from hearing the evidence of only part of an act." See Kinnamon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 84, 101 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (citing Evans v. State, 643 S.W.2d 157, 161 (Tex.App.1982)), overruled on other grounds by Cook v. State, 884 S.W.2d 485, 491 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994).

2024“It is designed to reduce the possibility of the jury receiving a false impression from hearing only a part of some act, conversation, or writing.” Id. (citing Cerda v. State, 557 S.W.2d 954, 957 (Tex. Crim.

2018Id. (citing Cerda v. State, 557 S.W.2d 954, 957 (Tex. Crim.

2013However, “Rule 107 does not permit the introduction of other similar but inadmissible evidence unless it is necessary to explain properly admitted evidence.” Id. “[S]elf-serving declarations of the accused are ordinarily inadmissible in his behalf, unless they come under some exception, such as: being part of the res gestae of the offense or arrest, or part of the statement or conversation previously proved by the State, or being necessary to explain or contradict acts or declarations first offered by the State.” Singletary v. State, 509 S.W.2d 572, 576 (Tex. Crim.

2013However, “Rule 107 does not permit the introduction of other similar but inadmissible evidence unless it is necessary to explain properly admitted evidence.” Id. “[S]elf-serving declarations of the accused are ordinarily inadmissible in his behalf, unless they come under some exception, such as: being part of the res gestae of the offense or arrest, or part of the statement or conversation previously proved by the State, or being necessary to explain or contradict acts or declarations first offered by the State.” Singletary v. State, 509 S.W.2d 572, 576 (Tex. Crim.

2012See Delk, 855 S.W.2d at 704–05; Hernandez v. State, 351 S.W.3d 156, 159 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, pet. ref’d).

2012See Delk , 855 S.W.2d at 704-05 ; Hernandez v. State , 351 S.W.3d 156, 159 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2011, pet. ref'd).

2012James v. State, 102 S.W.3d 162, 181 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd). *14 Generally, when a witness makes a statement of good conduct or character on a collateral issue, the opposing party may cross-examine the witness with specific instances, rebutting that false impression, but may not offer extrinsic evidence to prove the impeachment acts.

2012But courts construe this false impression exception narrowly James v. State. 102 S.W.3d 162, 181 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003. pet. ref d). . ln this case.

2012See Delk, 855 S.W.2d at 704–05; Hernandez v. State, 351 S.W.3d 156, 159 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, pet. ref’d).

2012See Delk , 855 S.W.2d at 704-05 ; Hernandez v. State , 351 S.W.3d 156, 159 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2011, pet. ref'd).

2005See Gilmore v. State , 744 S.W.2d 630, 631 (Tex. App. C Dallas 1987, pet. ref = d) (explaining the purpose of the rule).

2002Gilmore v. State , 744 S.W.2d 630, 631 (Tex. App. C Dallas 1987, pet. ref = d) (explaining the purpose of the rule).

2022Mick v. State, 256 S.W.3d 828, 831 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.) (internal citations omitted); see Tovar v. State, 221 S.W.3d 185, 191 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Credille v. State, 925 S.W.2d 112, 117 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref’d); see also Petty v. State, No. 10-18-00243-CR, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 9364 , at **2-4 (Tex. App.—Waco Dec. 2, 2020, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Bailey v. State, No. 11-09-00223-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5085 , at **10-13 (Tex. App.—Eastland June 30, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publ

2011Mick, 256 S.W.3d at 831 ; Credille, 925 S.W.2d at 116-17 .

2018Bezerra, 485 S.W.3d at 143 (citing Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 217-18 (Tex. Crim.

2017Walters, 247 S.W.3d at 218 .” Bezerra v. State, 485 S.W.3d 133, 143 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 2016), (petition for discretionary review refused (June 15, 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 495 , 196 L.

2015“The State may not rely on its own questioning on cross-examination to contradict the defendant and get in evidence collateral matters and evidence of convictions for other offenses which would otherwise be inadmissible.” Shipman v. State, 604 S.W.2d 182, 185 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980); see also Saglimbeni v. State, 100 S.W.3d 429, 434 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, pet. ref'd) (“There is no reason the false impression rule should not work both ways.”).

2015App. [Panel Op.] 1980); see also Saglimbeni v. State, 100 S.W.3d 429, 434 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. ref’d) (“There is no reason the false impression rule should not work both ways.”).

2015“The State may not rely on its own questioning on cross-examination to contradict the defendant and get in evidence collateral matters and evidence of convictions for other offenses which would otherwise be inadmissible.” Shipman v. State, 604 S.W.2d 182, 185 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980); see also Saglimbeni v. State, 100 S.W.3d 429, 434 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, pet. ref'd) (“There is no reason the false impression rule should not work both ways.”).

2012Crenshaw v. State, 125 S.W.3d 651, 656 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.j 2003, pet. ref d).

2007This rule “reduce[s] the possibility of the jury receiving a false impression from hearing only a part of some act, conversation, or writing.” Credille v. State, 925 S.W.2d 112, 116 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. refd). “[M]erely referring to a statement or a quotation from it does not invoke the rule.” Goldberg v. State, 95 S.W.3d 345, 387 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (citing Jernigan v. State, 589 S.W.2d 681, 694-95 (Tex.Crim.App.1979)).

2007This rule “reduce[s] the possibility of the jury receiving a false impression from hearing only a part of some act, conversation, or writing.” Credille v. State, 925 S.W.2d 112, 116 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. refd). “[M]erely referring to a statement or a quotation from it does not invoke the rule.” Goldberg v. State, 95 S.W.3d 345, 387 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (citing Jernigan v. State, 589 S.W.2d 681, 694-95 (Tex.Crim.App.1979)).

2006The purpose of the rule of optional completeness is to “reduce the possibility of the fact finder receiving a false impression from hearing the evidence of only part of an act.” See Kinnamon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 84, 101 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (citing Evans v. State, 643 S.W.2d 157, 161 (Tex.App.1982)), overruled on other grounds by Cook v. State, 884 S.W.2d 485, 491 (Tex.Crim.App.1994).

2006The purpose of the rule of optional completeness is to "reduce the possibility of the fact finder receiving a false impression from hearing the evidence of only part of an act." See Kinnamon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 84, 101 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (citing Evans v. State, 643 S.W.2d 157, 161 (Tex.App.1982)), overruled on other grounds by Cook v. State, 884 S.W.2d 485, 491 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994).