hearsay rule in Texas

2018As a reviewing court, we must determine whether the statement was made “‘under such circumstances as would reasonably show that it resulted from impulse rather than reason and reflection.’” Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 596 , quoting Fowler v. State, 379 S.W.2d 345, 347 (Tex.Crim.App. 1964). 6 We review a trial court’s determination whether evidence is admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule for an abuse of discretion.

2018Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730, 743 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006)(“[A]ppellate courts review a trial court’s determination of whether evidence is admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule only for an abuse of discretion”); Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 595 (“The admissibility of an out-of-court statement under the exceptions to the general hearsay exclusion rule is within the trial court’s discretion.”).

2025Art[icle] 38.072 or . . . some other exception to the hearsay rule.” 800 S.W.2d at 548 ; 5 4 see also Galindo v. State, No. 02-22-00151-CR, 2023 WL 2607752 , at *3 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth Mar. 23, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“Once the opponent of hearsay evidence makes the proper objection, it becomes the burden of the proponent of the evidence to establish that an exception applies that would make the evidence admissible in spite of its hearsay character.” (quoting Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571 , 578–79 (Tex. Crim.

2018See Reyna, 168 S.W.3d at 177–78 (explaining evidence proponent’s responsibility to inform trial judge why evidence is admissible); Taylor v. State, 263 S.W.3d 304, 309 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (“The proponent of hearsay testimony must point to a hearsay exception before the court can admit such testimony.”), aff’d, 268 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. Crim.

2022After a party raises an objection to hearsay testimony, “the burden shifts to the offeror to show that the testimony is admissible pursuant to an exception to the hearsay rule.” Ortega, 126 S.W.3d at 620 (citing Cofield v. State, 891 S.W.2d 952, 954 (Tex. Crim.

2008See Cofield v. State, 891 S.W.2d 952, 954 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (once defendant objected to evidence on the basis of the hearsay rule, the State was obligated to show that the evidence was admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule); Long v. State, 800 S.W.2d 545, 548 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (placing the burden on the prosecutor "as the proponent of the evidence ... to satisfy each element of his predicate for admission of the mother’s testimony pursuant to Art. 38.072”). 9 .

2019App. 2008) (“The hearsay doctrine, codified in Rules 801 and 802 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, is designed to exclude out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted that pose any of the four ‘hearsay dangers’ of faulty perception, faulty memory, accidental miscommunication, or insincerity.”); Guidry v. State, 9 S.W.3d 133, 151 (Tex. Crim.

2012When interpreting Texas Rule of Criminal Evidence 801(e)(2)(E), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that, before the alleged exception to the hearsay rule becomes admissible, the State must first show that the conspiracy existed. 10 Guidry v. State, 9 S.W.3d 133, 148 (Tex.Crim.App.1999).

2024Davidson v. State, No. 05-05-00864-CR, 2006 WL 3020403 , at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 21, 2005, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Gregory v. State, 56 S.W.3d 164, 183 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. dism’d); Beheler v. State, 3 S.W.3d 182, 189 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, pet. ref’d).

2015App. 2008). 20 Munoz v. State, 288 S.W.3d 55, 58 (Tex. App.—Houston[1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.)(citing Wright v. State, 154 S.W.3d 235, 241 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. ref’d). 21 Beheler, 3 S.W.3d at 188-89 . 14 On appeal, the Appellant claims the statement does not meet the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule.

2009“When offered for the truth of the matters asserted, so called ‘outcry testimony’ is hearsay; as such, it is objectionable unless the testimony is permitted by a prescribed exception to the hearsay rule.” Dorado v. State, 843 S.W.2d 37, 38 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); see Martinez v. State, 178 S.W.3d 806, 810-811 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).

2009"When offered for the truth of the matters asserted, so called `outcry testimony' is hearsay; as such, it is objectionable unless the testimony is permitted by a prescribed exception to the hearsay rule." Dorado v. State, 843 S.W.2d 37, 38 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); see Martinez v. State, 178 S.W.3d 806, 810-811 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).

2009“When offered for the truth of the matters asserted, so called ‘outcry testimony’ is hearsay; as such, it is objectionable unless the testimony is permitted by a prescribed exception to the hearsay rule.” Dorado v. State, 843 S.W.2d 37, 38 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); see Martinez v. State, 178 S.W.3d 806, 810-811 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).

2009"When offered for the truth of the matters asserted, so called `outcry testimony' is hearsay; as such, it is objectionable unless the testimony is permitted by a prescribed exception to the hearsay rule." Dorado v. State, 843 S.W.2d 37, 38 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); see Martinez v. State, 178 S.W.3d 806, 810-811 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).

2025Art[icle] 38.072 or . . . some other exception to the hearsay rule.” 800 S.W.2d at 548 ; 5 4 see also Galindo v. State, No. 02-22-00151-CR, 2023 WL 2607752 , at *3 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth Mar. 23, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“Once the opponent of hearsay evidence makes the proper objection, it becomes the burden of the proponent of the evidence to establish that an exception applies that would make the evidence admissible in spite of its hearsay character.” (quoting Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571 , 578–79 (Tex. Crim.

2024See id. art. 38.072, § 2(b) (“A statement that meets the requirements of Subsection (a) is not inadmissible because of the hearsay rule.”); Long v. State, 800 S.W.2d 545 , 547–48 (Tex. Crim.

2006Torres v. State, 71 S.W.3d 758, 760 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 153-54 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 379 ; see also Coffin v. State, 885 S.W.2d 140, 149 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (holding that a ruling on admissibility of an out-of-court statement under a hearsay exception is within the trial court’s discretion, subject to review only for abuse of discretion).

2006Torres v. State, 71 S.W.3d 758, 760 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002); Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 153-54 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 379 ; see also Coffin v. State, 885 S.W.2d 140, 149 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) (holding that a ruling on admissibility of an out-of-court statement under a hearsay exception is within the trial court’s discretion, subject to review only for abuse of discretion).

2014The Austin Court of Appeals has explained that: “The medical treatment exception to the hearsay rule is based on the assumption that the patient appreciates that the effectiveness of the treatment may depend on the accuracy of the information provided to the physician.” Fleming v. State, 819 S.W.2d 237, 247 (Tex. App.—Austin 1991, pet. ref’d) (citing MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE § 292 (Edward Cleary, ed., 3d ed. 1984)).

1998As previously noted, that rule provides evidence is not excluded by the hearsay rule, even if the declarant is available as a witness, when it is a statement “made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.” “The medical treatment exception to the hearsay rule is based on the assumption that the patient appreciates that the effectiveness of the treatment may depend upon the

2021Rule 107 is an exception to the hearsay rule, Walters, 247 S.W.3d at 217 , and “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 v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797, 814 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011).

2013“Hearsay statements are generally not admissible unless the statement falls within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule.” Walters, 247 S.W.3d at 217 ; see TEX.

2024The State does not address Devasia’s argument that admission of the “entire” video was in error. optional completeness is an exception to the hearsay rule.”) (citing Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797, 814 (Tex. Crim.

2024An adverse party may also introduce any other act, declaration, conversation, writing, or recorded statement that is necessary to explain or allow the trier of fact to fully understand the part offered by the opponent.”); Castillo v. State, 573 S.W.3d 869, 877 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d) (“The rule of optional completeness is an exception to the hearsay rule.” (citing Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797, 814 (Tex. Crim.

2023Even if the out-of-court statement itself is not introduced, the hearsay rule may apply if the testimony allows the jury to ascertain the purport of the statement; this type of evidence is known as “backdoor hearsay.” Id.

2021See, e.g., Schaffer, 777 S.W.2d at 113 (officer’s testimony, which was “designed to circumvent the hearsay rule and present the jury with information from unsworn, out-of-court sources,” was inadmissible “backdoor hearsay”); Head, 4 S.W.3d at 265 (referring to officer’s testimony, in which he effectively testified to the 14 inadmissible statements of a non-testifying informant as being “indirect hearsay,” which was inadmissible at trial); Soroa v. State, No. 08-98-00119-CR, 2000 WL 1514096 , at *10-11 (Tex.App.--El Paso Oct. 12, 2000, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (referring to

2005The decision in White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992), treating the hearsay exception for spontaneous declarations as a "firmly rooted” one for the purpose of applying the reliability test of Roberts [ 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 (1980)] gave leeway to prosecutors and courts to try cases by introducing statements made in 911 calls and to responding officers (as evidence of the truth of the matter asserted), even if the declarant did not testify. 6 .

2005The decision in White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992), treating the hearsay exception for spontaneous declarations as a "firmly rooted” one for the purpose of applying the reliability test of Roberts [ 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 (1980)] gave leeway to prosecutors and courts to try cases by introducing statements made in 911 calls and to responding officers (as evidence of the truth of the matter asserted), even if the declarant did not testify. 6 .

2021“By contrast, [we] review a trial court’s determination of whether evidence is admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule only for an abuse of discretion,” id. at 743 , and “will uphold an evidentiary ruling if it was correct on any theory of law applicable to the case,” James v. State, 8 Approximately three months after the incident, Hutzelman filed an affidavit of non-prosecution, in which she stated that Brown did not hit her and was just holding her back from breaking the table. 7 555 S.W.3d 254, 258 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2018, pet. dism’d, untimely filed) (citing

2020THE COURT: And you’re seeking to keep it out why? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, because I don’t believe it shows motive, and I don’t believe it has anything to do with the relationship between John Finch and Lindsey, at least this video doesn’t. -4- 04-18-00414-CR objections to the admission of excited utterances arise because the hearsay exception depends largely upon the subjective state of mind of the declarant at the time of the statement, whereas the issue of whether an out-of-court statement (excited or otherwise) is ‘testimonial’ under Crawford depends upon the perceptions of an object

2015If a statement is made by a declarant who does not testify and the statement is testimonial, then it is not admissible even if a hearsay exception applies or if the testimony bears “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id., 541 U.S. at 60 , 124 S. Ct. at 1369 .

2015If a statement is made by a declarant who does not testify and the statement is testimonial, then it is not admissible even if a hearsay exception applies or if the testimony bears “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id., 541 U.S. at 60 , 124 S. Ct. at 1369 .

2008See Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 126-27 , 119 S.Ct. 1887 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999) ("The ‘against penal interest' exception to the hearsay rule — unlike other previously recognized firmly rooted exceptions — is not generally based on the maxim that statements made without a motive to reflect on the legal consequences of one’s statement, and in situations that are exceptionally conducive to veracity, lack the dangers of inaccuracy that typically accompany hearsay.

2008See Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 126-27 , 119 S.Ct. 1887 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999) ("The ‘against penal interest' exception to the hearsay rule — unlike other previously recognized firmly rooted exceptions — is not generally based on the maxim that statements made without a motive to reflect on the legal consequences of one’s statement, and in situations that are exceptionally conducive to veracity, lack the dangers of inaccuracy that typically accompany hearsay.

2025Id. (citing Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542, 553 (Tex. Crim.

1998The excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule apples when the declarant is “ ‘dominated by the emotions, excitement, fear, or pain of the event.’ ” Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542, 553 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (quoting Tex.R.Crim.

2008See Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 816 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990) ("the crux of the question presented is therefore whether the State, as the proponent of evidence presumptively barred by the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause, has carried its burden of proving that the ... statements ... bore sufficient indicia of reliability to withstand scrutiny under the Clause”).

2008See Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 816 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990) ("the crux of the question presented is therefore whether the State, as the proponent of evidence presumptively barred by the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause, has carried its burden of proving that the ... statements ... bore sufficient indicia of reliability to withstand scrutiny under the Clause”).

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.

2023“The hearsay doctrine, codified in Rules 801 and 802 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, is designed to exclude out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted that pose any of the four ‘hearsay dangers’ of faulty perception, faulty memory, accidental miscommunication, or insincerity.” Fischer v. State, 252 S.W.3d 375, 378 (Tex. Crim.

2024Id. § 2(b)(3). “[O]utcry testimony admitted in compliance with [Article] 38.072 is admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, meaning it is considered substantive evidence, admissible for the truth of the matter asserted in the testimony.” Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.

2007Ann. art. 38.072 (Vernon 2005) (provides exception to the hearsay rule); Rodriguez v. State , 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.

2015A trial court's decision to admit evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.1 A trial court has only abused its discretion if its decision falls outside the zone of reasonable disagreement.2 Article 38.072 of the code of criminal procedure provides a mechanism that requires the trial court to determine on a case-by-case basis if outcry testimony reaches the level of reliability required to be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.3 Indicia of reliability that the trial court may consider [under article 38.072] include (1) whether the child victim tes

2013To qualify for the hearsay exception, the statement must describe the alleged offense and must have been made to the first 4 person, eighteen years of age or older, other than the defendant, to whom the child made a “statement about the offense.” Garcia, 792 S.W.2d at 91 .

2019When asked how she knew this, Campbell testified that Jelena stated that Appellant had threatened to kill her multiple times and that if Jelena ever died in an accident, to ensure that her death was investigated. 224 (...continued) defendant properly objected to hearsay, the State then had the burden to show that the proffered evidence was admissible pursuant to a hearsay exception). 225 See Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 387 (Tex. Crim.

2012Hearsay issues In his fourth issue, Garcia asserts that the district court abused its discretion in admitting Cooper's statements to Officer Slaughter under the "excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule. (11) In his fifth issue, Garcia similarly asserts that the district court abused its discretion in admitting Cooper's statements to Dr. Berro under the "medical treatment and diagnosis" exception to the hearsay rule. (12) Again, we review the district court's decision to admit evidence for abuse of discretion and will not find an abuse of discretion unless the district court's decision

2025However, “[i]n order to have evidence admitted under a hearsay exception, the proponent of the evidence must specify which exception he is relying upon.” Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex. Crim.

2016In particular, “‘[i]n order to have evidence admitted under a hearsay exception, the proponent of the evidence must specify which exception he is relying upon.’” Reyna, 168 S.W.3d at 178 (quoting Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841, 846 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002)).

1990Even though the formal requirements may be shown, they are not to be admitted automatically; the indispensable fundamental trustworthiness of the proffered record must be evident.” Id. at 884 . “[E]vidence within the ambit of a recognized exception to the hearsay rule is not admissible if it does not have the ‘indicia of reliability.’ ” McCrary v. State, 604 S.W.2d 113, 115 (Tex.Cr.App.1980).

1987Appellant’s final case, Coulter v. State, 494 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), involved the business records exception to the hearsay rule where marihuana was placed into an envelope and the chemists who placed their initials on the envelope were not available as witnesses at the time of trial.

2015Robert, 448 U.S. 56 , 64 S.Ct. 2538 . 65 L.Ed.2d 587 (1980). ' The Court of Criminal Appeals has provided that the constitutional right to confront can prevent admissibility even where a hearsay exception is applicable.

2009Before Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), was decided, the scope of a defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights was delineated by Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), which conditioned the admissibility of all hearsay evidence on whether it fell under a “firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bore “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Under this test, a hearsay statement was per se reliable under the Confrontation Clause if it fell within a “firmly rooted” exception to the hearsay rule.

2019He relies primarily on Cole v. State, 839 S.W.2d 798 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990), clarified on reh’g (1992), for the proposition that because matters “observed by law-enforcement personnel” are excepted from the hearsay exception for public records as applied in criminal cases, see TEX.R.EVID. 803(8)(A)(ii), those same matters are also excluded from the scope of the business-records hearsay objection, see TEX.R.EVID. 803(6).

2012See also Cole v. State, 839 S.W.2d 798, 811-12 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (noting that Rule 803(8)'s "broad language, read in light of the legislative history as a whole, leads to the conclusion that Congress’ broader concern was with the potentially prejudicial influence of an adversarial setting and with a defendant's confrontation rights”); McLeod v. State, 56 S.W.3d 704, 710 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) ("The exclusionary clause [in Texas Rule of Evidence 803(8)(B) ], which prohibits from this hearsay exception matters observed by police officers, only applies where possible impa

2026“When hearsay contains hearsay, the Rules of Evidence require that each part of the combined statements be within an exception 8 to the hearsay rule.” Sanchez v. State, 354 S.W.3d 476 , 485–86 (Tex. Crim.

2024“When hearsay contains hearsay, the Rules of Evidence require that each part of the combined statements be within an exception to the hearsay rule.” Sanchez v. State, 354 S.W.3d 476 , 485–86 (Tex. Crim.