present-sense-impression exception in Texas

2022“Authors on the subject agree that the excited-utterance exception is broader than the present-sense-impression exception.” Id. at 240 .

2012Evid. 803(1). "[T]he excited-utterance exception is broader than the present-sense-impression exception." McCarty v. State , 257 S.W.3d 238, 240 (Tex. Crim.

2023Brooks, 990 S.W.2d at 287 (any error in admitting a hearsay statement under the present-sense-impression exception “was harmless in light of other properly admitted evidence proving the same fact”).

2021“The present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule is based upon the underlying premise that the contemporaneity of the event and the declaration ensures reliability of the statement.” Brooks v. State, 990 S.W.2d 278, 287 (Tex. 2 For argument purposes, appellant concedes that appellant’s girlfriend’s alleged statements that the daughter relayed to the police officer would fall under the excited-utterance or present-sense-impression exception “because if [his girlfriend] in fact did yell that she was punched in the face, she was under the emotion of the moment, describing what was curr

2025Id. at 381 (present-sense- impression exception is “predicated on the notion that the utterance is a reflex product of immediate sensual impressions, unaided by retrospective mental processes” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 28 Nor does Galvan’s statement fall within the excited-utterance exception to the hearsay bar.

2013See Fischer v. State, 252 S.W.3d 375 , 379–87 (Tex. Crim.

2026See Kinnett v. State, 623 S.W.3d 876 , 911 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. ref’d) (holding that recording of call to police nonemergency number reporting a reckless driver fell within the present-sense-impression exception to the hearsay rule because it described what the caller had witnessed in the immediate past); Reyes v. State, 314 S.W.3d 74, 78 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, no pet.) (holding that 4 recording of 911 call fell within present-sense-impression exception because statements indicated caller was describing events as they were happening); see also Castillo v. State, 517

2026See Kinnett v. State, 623 S.W.3d 876 , 911 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. ref’d) (holding that recording of call to police nonemergency number reporting a reckless driver fell within the present-sense-impression exception to the hearsay rule because it described what the caller had witnessed in the immediate past); Reyes v. State, 314 S.W.3d 74, 78 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, no pet.) (holding that 4 recording of 911 call fell within present-sense-impression exception because statements indicated caller was describing events as they were happening); see also Castillo v. State, 517

2026See Kinnett v. State, 623 S.W.3d 876 , 911 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. ref’d) (holding that recording of call to police nonemergency number reporting a reckless driver fell within the present-sense-impression exception to the hearsay rule because it described what the caller had witnessed in the immediate past); Reyes v. State, 314 S.W.3d 74, 78 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, no pet.) (holding that 4 recording of 911 call fell within present-sense-impression exception because statements indicated caller was describing events as they were happening); see also Castillo v. State, 517

2026See Kinnett v. State, 623 S.W.3d 876 , 911 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. ref’d) (holding that recording of call to police nonemergency number reporting a reckless driver fell within the present-sense-impression exception to the hearsay rule because it described what the caller had witnessed in the immediate past); Reyes v. State, 314 S.W.3d 74, 78 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, no pet.) (holding that 4 recording of 911 call fell within present-sense-impression exception because statements indicated caller was describing events as they were happening); see also Castillo v. State, 517

2026See Kinnett v. State, 623 S.W.3d 876 , 911 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. ref’d) (holding that recording of call to police nonemergency number reporting a reckless driver fell within the present-sense-impression exception to the hearsay rule because it described what the caller had witnessed in the immediate past); Reyes v. State, 314 S.W.3d 74, 78 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, no pet.) (holding that 4 recording of 911 call fell within present-sense-impression exception because statements indicated caller was describing events as they were happening); see also Castillo v. State, 517

2026See Kinnett v. State, 623 S.W.3d 876 , 911 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. ref’d) (holding that recording of call to police nonemergency number reporting a reckless driver fell within the present-sense-impression exception to the hearsay rule because it described what the caller had witnessed in the immediate past); Reyes v. State, 314 S.W.3d 74, 78 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, no pet.) (holding that 4 recording of 911 call fell within present-sense-impression exception because statements indicated caller was describing events as they were happening); see also Castillo v. State, 517

2026Confrontation Clause Analysis The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 38, 42 , 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1357, 1359 (2004); Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568, 575 (Tex. Crim.

2026Confrontation Clause Analysis The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 38, 42 , 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1357, 1359 (2004); Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568, 575 (Tex. Crim.

2026Confrontation Clause Analysis The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 38, 42 , 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1357, 1359 (2004); Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568, 575 (Tex. Crim.

2021See Henley, 493 S.W.3d at 93 . 10 Body-Camera Recording Appellant argues that the body-camera recording “was introduced as improper impeachment evidence” because it contained hearsay and the State did not follow the foundation that is required under Rule 613 of the Texas Rules of Evidence concerning a witness’s prior inconsistent statements.

2021The present-sense-impression exception allows the admission of out-of-court statements “describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.” Id.

2019Evid. 803(1), and as a nontestimonial statement under the Confrontation Clause, see Davis, 547 U.S. at 827 (characterizing 911 call as nontestimonial when caller described ongoing assault).