public records exception in Texas

2003Safety v. Struve , 79 S.W.3d 796, 803-04 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, pet. denied) (holding that DIC-23 is properly admitted under the public records exception).

2003Safety v. Struve , 79 S.W.3d 796, 803-04 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2002, pet. denied) (holding that DIC-23 is properly admitted under the public records exception).

2010See id.; Corrales v. Department of Family & Protective Servs., 155 S.W.3d 478, 486 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.) (holding that while police officer’s factual findings in police report may qualify as public record, statements of witnesses in report would not) (citing Kratz v. Exxon Corp., 890 S.W.2d 899 , 905 & n.5 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, no writ)); see also In re E.A.K., 192 S.W.3d 133, 145 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (same).

2010See id. ; Corrales v. Department of Family & Protective Servs. , 155 S.W.3d 478, 486 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2004, no pet.) (holding that while police officer's factual findings in police report may qualify as public record, statements of witnesses in report would not) (citing Kratz v. Exxon Corp. , 890 S.W.2d 899 , 905 & n.5 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1994, no writ)); see also In re E.A.K. , 192 S.W.3d 133, 145 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (same).

2022See Belle v. State, 543 S.W.3d 871, 876 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (“in criminal cases, matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel are excluded” from the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Baker v. State, 177 S.W.3d 113, 122-23 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“[H]ad the State attempted to offer Officer Green’s actual report into 4 evidence to prove that the observations contained in it were true, the report would properly have been excluded as inadmissible hearsay under rule 803(8)(B), given that Officer Green is a law

2022Evid. 803(8)(A)(ii); Belle v. State, 543 S.W.3d 871, 876 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (noting that “in criminal cases, matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel are excluded” from the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Baker v. State, 177 S.W.3d 113, 122-23 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“[H]ad the State attempted to offer Officer Green’s actual report into evidence to prove that the observations contained in it were true, the report would properly have been excluded as inadmissible hearsay . . . given that Officer Gre

2006Instead, for purposes of Texas Rule of Evidence 803, it is considered a public record or business record. 1 Denoso v. *222 State, 156 S.W.3d 166, 180 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref'd) (“Generally, autopsy reports are admissible pursuant to the public record and business record exceptions to the hearsay rule.”); see also Butler; 872 S.W.2d at 238 (holding that an autopsy report is admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule).

2005See Butler, 872 S.W.2d at 238 .

2004For example, hearsay statements within the TEC record will not be saved from exclusion by the public records exception. [Mary Lee Found. v. Texas Employment Comm’n, 817 S.W.2d 725, 728 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1991, no writ)].

2004For example, hearsay statements within the TEC record will not be saved from exclusion by the public records exception. [ Mary Lee Found. v. Texas Employment Comm'n , 817 S.W.2d 725, 728 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1991, no writ)].

2010See id.; Corrales v. Department of Family & Protective Servs., 155 S.W.3d 478, 486 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.) (holding that while police officer’s factual findings in police report may qualify as public record, statements of witnesses in report would not) (citing Kratz v. Exxon Corp., 890 S.W.2d 899 , 905 & n.5 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, no writ)); see also In re E.A.K., 192 S.W.3d 133, 145 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (same).

2010See id. ; Corrales v. Department of Family & Protective Servs. , 155 S.W.3d 478, 486 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2004, no pet.) (holding that while police officer's factual findings in police report may qualify as public record, statements of witnesses in report would not) (citing Kratz v. Exxon Corp. , 890 S.W.2d 899 , 905 & n.5 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1994, no writ)); see also In re E.A.K. , 192 S.W.3d 133, 145 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (same).

2026Evid. 803(8); In re E.A.K., 192 S.W.3d 133 , 145 n.17 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (noting that while a police officer’s factual findings in a police report may qualify as a public record, the statements of witnesses in the report would not (citing Although Husband’s fourth issue focuses on the trial court’s admission of the 5 police reports over his hearsay objections, he also argues that the reports were not properly authenticated as business records.

2010See id.; Corrales v. Department of Family & Protective Servs., 155 S.W.3d 478, 486 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.) (holding that while police officer’s factual findings in police report may qualify as public record, statements of witnesses in report would not) (citing Kratz v. Exxon Corp., 890 S.W.2d 899 , 905 & n.5 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, no writ)); see also In re E.A.K., 192 S.W.3d 133, 145 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (same).

2023See, e.g., United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214 , 1226–27 (11th -6- 04-22-00333-CR Cir. 2010).

2023See, e.g., United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214 , 1226–27 (11th Cir. 2010).

2022See Belle v. State, 543 S.W.3d 871, 876 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (“in criminal cases, matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel are excluded” from the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Baker v. State, 177 S.W.3d 113, 122-23 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“[H]ad the State attempted to offer Officer Green’s actual report into 4 evidence to prove that the observations contained in it were true, the report would properly have been excluded as inadmissible hearsay under rule 803(8)(B), given that Officer Green is a law

2022Evid. 803(8)(A)(ii); Belle v. State, 543 S.W.3d 871, 876 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (noting that “in criminal cases, matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel are excluded” from the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Baker v. State, 177 S.W.3d 113, 122-23 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“[H]ad the State attempted to offer Officer Green’s actual report into evidence to prove that the observations contained in it were true, the report would properly have been excluded as inadmissible hearsay . . . given that Officer Gre

2012See Moss v. Ole South Real Estate, Inc., 933 F.2d 1300 , 1306–08 (5th Cir. 1991) (explaining that, under almost identical federal rule, general distrust of out-of-court declarants underpinning hearsay rules does not apply to government officials preparing official documents unless proven otherwise); Beavers ex rel.

2012See Moss v. Ole South Real Estate, Inc. , 933 F.2d 1300 , 1306–08 (5th Cir. 1991) (explaining that, under almost identical federal rule, general distrust of out-of-court declarants underpinning hearsay rules does not apply to government officials preparing official documents unless proven otherwise); Beavers ex rel.

2011TEX .R.EVID . 803(8); see Nieschwietz v. State, No. 04-05-00520-CR, 2006 WL 1684739 at *6 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2006, Nov. 8, 2006, pet. ref’d)(officer’s testimony regarding driver’s license check admissible under public records exception); Price v. State, No. 08-01-00073-CR, 2002 WL 471343 at *6-7 (Tex.App.-- El Paso March 28, 2002, pet. ref’d)(not designated for publication)(officer’s testimony regarding driver’s license check on computer was admissible under public records exception); see also Smith v. State, 895 S.W.2d 449, 455 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1995, pet. ref’d)(defendant’s driving recor

2011Tex.R.Evid. 803(8); see Nieschwietz v. State , No. 04-05-00520-CR, 2006 WL 1684739 at *6 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2006, Nov. 8, 2006, pet. ref’d)(officer’s testimony regarding driver’s license check admissible under public records exception); Price v. State , No. 08-01-00073-CR, 2002 WL 471343 at *6-7 (Tex.App.--El Paso March 28, 2002, pet. ref’d)(not designated for publication)(officer’s testimony regarding driver’s license check on computer was admissible under public records exception); see also Smith v. State , 895 S.W.2d 449, 455 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1995, pet. ref’d)(defendant’s driving recor

2011TEX .R.EVID . 803(8); see Nieschwietz v. State, No. 04-05-00520-CR, 2006 WL 1684739 at *6 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2006, Nov. 8, 2006, pet. ref’d)(officer’s testimony regarding driver’s license check admissible under public records exception); Price v. State, No. 08-01-00073-CR, 2002 WL 471343 at *6-7 (Tex.App.-- El Paso March 28, 2002, pet. ref’d)(not designated for publication)(officer’s testimony regarding driver’s license check on computer was admissible under public records exception); see also Smith v. State, 895 S.W.2d 449, 455 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1995, pet. ref’d)(defendant’s driving recor

2011Tex.R.Evid. 803(8); see Nieschwietz v. State , No. 04-05-00520-CR, 2006 WL 1684739 at *6 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2006, Nov. 8, 2006, pet. ref’d)(officer’s testimony regarding driver’s license check admissible under public records exception); Price v. State , No. 08-01-00073-CR, 2002 WL 471343 at *6-7 (Tex.App.--El Paso March 28, 2002, pet. ref’d)(not designated for publication)(officer’s testimony regarding driver’s license check on computer was admissible under public records exception); see also Smith v. State , 895 S.W.2d 449, 455 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1995, pet. ref’d)(defendant’s driving recor

1997See Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 , 63 S.Ct. 477 , 87 L.Ed. 645 (1943).

1997See Palmer v. Hoffman , 318 U.S. 109 (1943). case, the administrative record contains no evidence indicating that Officer Gautier had probable cause to administer field sobriety tests to Rodriguez.

2026Safety v. Caruana, 363 S.W.3d 558, 564 (Tex. 2012); see In re Commitment of Clark, No. 09-15-00455-CV, 2017 WL 706473 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 23, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Rule 803(8) of the Rules of Evidence generally provides an exception to hearsay for police records offered into 14 evidence in a civil case.” (quoting In re Commitment of Clemons, No. 09-15-00488-CV, 2016 WL 7323298 , at *9 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Dec. 15, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.))); Nassar v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, No. 13-14-00187-CV, 2014 WL 6602294 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Nov. 20, 2

2016We grant their objections, and we do not consider this evidence in our disposition of this appeal. 29 See Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. v. Smoak, 134 S.W.3d 880 , 892 n.2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, pet. denied) (holding that the officer conducting the investigation “was not qualified, and his skill and experience were insufficient to give an opinion on whose negligence caused the accident,” and that “[f]or that reason, his conclusions on the cause of the accident were also inadmissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule under Rule 803(8)”). 30 See Green v. Kaposta, 152 S.W.3d 839, 841 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2015In United States v. Quezada, 754 F.2d 1190, 1193-94 (5th Cir.1985) the Fifth Circuit distinguished between public records that are generated in a routine and ministerial manner and police reports that are generated in an adversarial setting.

2012See United States v. Dowdell, 595 F.3d 50, 70-71 (1st Cir.2010) ("The Rule's enactment history indicates that `the reason for this exclusion is that observations by police officers at the scene of the crime or the apprehension of the defendant are not as reliable as observations by public officials in other cases because of the adversarial nature of the confrontation between the police and the defendant in criminal cases.'") (citation omitted); United States v. Hatfield, 591 F.3d 945, 952 (7th Cir.2010) (noting that the concern of the drafters of the exception in Rule 803(8)(B) was "that repor

2012See United States v. Dowdell, 595 F.3d 50, 70-71 (1st Cir.2010) ("The Rule's enactment history indicates that 'the reason for this exclusion is that observations by police officers at the scene of the crime or the apprehension of the defendant are not as reliable as observations by public officials in other cases because of the adversarial nature of the confrontation between the police and the defendant in criminal cases.' ") (citation omitted); United States v. Hatfield, 591 F.3d 945, 952 (7th Cir.2010) (noting that the concern of the drafters of the exception in Rule 803(8)(B) was "that repo

2012See United States v. Dowdell, 595 F.3d 50, 70-71 (1st Cir.2010) ("The Rule's enactment history indicates that `the reason for this exclusion is that observations by police officers at the scene of the crime or the apprehension of the defendant are not as reliable as observations by public officials in other cases because of the adversarial nature of the confrontation between the police and the defendant in criminal cases.'") (citation omitted); United States v. Hatfield, 591 F.3d 945, 952 (7th Cir.2010) (noting that the concern of the drafters of the exception in Rule 803(8)(B) was "that repor

2012See United States v. Dowdell, 595 F.3d 50, 70-71 (1st Cir.2010) ("The Rule's enactment history indicates that 'the reason for this exclusion is that observations by police officers at the scene of the crime or the apprehension of the defendant are not as reliable as observations by public officials in other cases because of the adversarial nature of the confrontation between the police and the defendant in criminal cases.' ") (citation omitted); United States v. Hatfield, 591 F.3d 945, 952 (7th Cir.2010) (noting that the concern of the drafters of the exception in Rule 803(8)(B) was "that repo

2012Although Fischer did not involve the precise question before us, its discussion regarding the exclusion of police reports under the public records exception is equally applicable here. [7] See, e.g., McRae v. Echols, 8 S.W.3d 797, 799-800 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. denied) (holding that an officer's conclusions and opinions regarding a collision between a car and a forklift in an accident report fell within the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Sciarrilla v. Osborne, 946 S.W.2d 919, 923-24 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1997, pet. denied) (holding that state trooper's written report regarding

2012Cf. Layton City v. Peronek, 803 P.2d 1294, 1297 (Utah Ct.App.1990) (holding that a jail incident report offered by the government in a civil probation revocation proceeding "is on substantially the same footing” as a police report in a criminal case and thus lacks sufficient reliability to be admissible as a business or public record).. .

2012Although Fischer did not involve the precise question before us, its discussion regarding the exclusion of police reports under the public records exception is equally applicable here. [7] See, e.g., McRae v. Echols, 8 S.W.3d 797, 799-800 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. denied) (holding that an officer's conclusions and opinions regarding a collision between a car and a forklift in an accident report fell within the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Sciarrilla v. Osborne, 946 S.W.2d 919, 923-24 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1997, pet. denied) (holding that state trooper's written report regarding

2012Although Fischer did not involve the precise question before us, its discussion regarding the exclusion of police reports under the public records exception is equally applicable here. .See, e.g., McRae v. Echols, 8 S.W.3d 797, 799-800 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. denied) (holding that an officer's conclusions and opinions regarding a collision between a car and a forklift in an accident report fell within the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Sciarrilla v. Osborne, 946 S.W.2d 919, 923-24 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1997, pet. denied) (holding that state trooper’s written report regarding his

2012EVID. 801(e)(2). [11] "To rank as `testimonial,' a statement must have a `primary purpose' of `establish[ing] or prov[ing] past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.'" Bullcoming v. New Mexico, ___ U.S. ___, ___ n. 6, 131 S.Ct. 2705 , 2714 n. 6, 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011) (plurality opinion) (citing Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006)). [12] In fact, Congress excluded police reports in criminal cases from the public records exception precisely to avoid admission of evidence that is not subject to cross-examination. 2 KENNETH S. BROU

2012In fact, Congress excluded police reports in criminal cases from the public records exception precisely to avoid admission of evidence that is not subject to cross-examination. 2 Kenneth S. Broun, McCormick on Evidence § 296, at 332 (6th ed.2006); see also Enter-line, 894 F.2d at 290 ("The exclusion [of matters observed by law enforcement officers in a criminal case] seeks to avoid admitting an officer’s report of his observations in lieu of his personal testimony of what he observed.’’); United States v. Sawyer, 607 F.2d 1190, 1193 (7th Cir.1979) ("In our view, the legislative history of Rule

2012EVID. 801(e)(2). [11] "To rank as `testimonial,' a statement must have a `primary purpose' of `establish[ing] or prov[ing] past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.'" Bullcoming v. New Mexico, ___ U.S. ___, ___ n. 6, 131 S.Ct. 2705 , 2714 n. 6, 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011) (plurality opinion) (citing Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006)). [12] In fact, Congress excluded police reports in criminal cases from the public records exception precisely to avoid admission of evidence that is not subject to cross-examination. 2 KENNETH S. BROU

2012In fact, Congress excluded police reports in criminal cases from the public records exception precisely to avoid admission of evidence that is not subject to cross-examination. 2 Kenneth S. Broun, McCormick on Evidence § 296, at 332 (6th ed.2006); see also Enter-line, 894 F.2d at 290 ("The exclusion [of matters observed by law enforcement officers in a criminal case] seeks to avoid admitting an officer’s report of his observations in lieu of his personal testimony of what he observed.’’); United States v. Sawyer, 607 F.2d 1190, 1193 (7th Cir.1979) ("In our view, the legislative history of Rule

2012See United States v. Dowdell, 595 F.3d 50, 70-71 (1st Cir.2010) ("The Rule's enactment history indicates that `the reason for this exclusion is that observations by police officers at the scene of the crime or the apprehension of the defendant are not as reliable as observations by public officials in other cases because of the adversarial nature of the confrontation between the police and the defendant in criminal cases.'") (citation omitted); United States v. Hatfield, 591 F.3d 945, 952 (7th Cir.2010) (noting that the concern of the drafters of the exception in Rule 803(8)(B) was "that repor

2012See United States v. Dowdell, 595 F.3d 50, 70-71 (1st Cir.2010) ("The Rule's enactment history indicates that 'the reason for this exclusion is that observations by police officers at the scene of the crime or the apprehension of the defendant are not as reliable as observations by public officials in other cases because of the adversarial nature of the confrontation between the police and the defendant in criminal cases.' ") (citation omitted); United States v. Hatfield, 591 F.3d 945, 952 (7th Cir.2010) (noting that the concern of the drafters of the exception in Rule 803(8)(B) was "that repo

2012Although Fischer did not involve the precise question before us, its discussion regarding the exclusion of police reports under the public records exception is equally applicable here. [7] See, e.g., McRae v. Echols, 8 S.W.3d 797, 799-800 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. denied) (holding that an officer's conclusions and opinions regarding a collision between a car and a forklift in an accident report fell within the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Sciarrilla v. Osborne, 946 S.W.2d 919, 923-24 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1997, pet. denied) (holding that state trooper's written report regarding

2012Although Fischer did not involve the precise question before us, its discussion regarding the exclusion of police reports under the public records exception is equally applicable here. .See, e.g., McRae v. Echols, 8 S.W.3d 797, 799-800 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. denied) (holding that an officer's conclusions and opinions regarding a collision between a car and a forklift in an accident report fell within the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Sciarrilla v. Osborne, 946 S.W.2d 919, 923-24 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1997, pet. denied) (holding that state trooper’s written report regarding his