Presented by: Woodway - TMCEC · 2014-12-05 · The Client, Penitent, Patient Lawyer, Clergy,...

1

Introduction to the Texas Rules of Evidence

Presented by:

Rod Goble, Judge, City of Woodway

Vikram Deivanayagam, Judge, City of Woodway

DEFINITION

EVIDENCE is the means by which alleged facts are proved or disproved. Proof is that which ordinarily convinces or satisfies one of the existence or non‐existence of facts.

2

TYPES OF EVIDENCE

(1) Testimony

(1) Personal Knowledge

(2) Expert Opinion

(2) Documents

(3) Tangible Objects

(4) Demonstrative Evidence

Rule 102. Purpose and Construction

These Rules shall be construed to:

Secure fairness in administration (of justice)

Eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay

Promote growth and development of law of evidence so that;

The truth may be ascertained

Proceedings may be justly determined

Rule 101 (d) Applicability

Do not apply to Magistrate Functions 15:17 or bond hearings, search arrest or capias hearings.

Do not apply to JNOA hearings or Contempt.

Parties must object.

3

Rule 101 (c) Hierarchy

Constitution

Statutes

Case Law

Rules of Evidence

Rule 104(a): Admissibility Generally

“Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subdivision (b). In making its determination the court is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges.”

4

Rule 104(a): Preliminary Questions Court (Read Judge) Decides:

Whether or not witness is qualified to testify

Whether or not a privilege exists

Whether or not evidence is admissible subject to the rule of relevance and materiality

Witnesses

Who may Testify?

Who may not?

RULE 601(a): COMPENTENCY OF WITNESSES

“Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules.”

5

RULE 601(a): INCOMPETENT WITNESS

“The following witnesses shall be incompetent to testify in any proceeding subject to these rules:”

Insane persons

Children

Insane Persons Incompetent

IF:

In the court’s opinion, the person is in an insane condition of mind when offered as a witness, or in the court’s opinion, was in that condition when the events happened about which they are called to testify

Can they take the oath?

Issue is not “if” the witness will tell the truth, but rather “can” the witness tell the truth.

Example: Children

IF:

After being examined by the court, the child appears not to possess sufficient intellect to relate transactions with respect to which they are interrogated.

NOTE: Any witness is incompetent under 601(a) if he/she lacks sufficient intellect to understand and relate the facts about which they are to testify

6

RULE 605: JUDGE AS WITNESS

“The judge presiding at the trial may nottestify in that trial as a witness. No objection need be made in order to preserve the point.

If it ain’t under oath…..

It ain’t evidence. Period.

Testimonial argument

Leading questions of non‐adverse witnesses

Vouching in argument

Pro se defendants

7

Special Class of Witnesses

The Expert

Rule 702. Testimony by Expert

If

#1 scientific,

#2 technical, or

#3 other specialized knowledge


AND

will assist the trier of fact (judge or jury) to understand the evidence or determine a

fact in issue,

THEN

an “Expert” may testify in the

form of an opinion

8


BUT

All other witnesses limited (Competent) to testify only to those things in their personal knowledge.

In other words, not opinions.

Except when it does not matter.

Daubert Test:Reliability of Scientific Evidence

1) Whether the scientific theory can be (and has been) tested;

2) Whether the scientific theory has been subjected to peer review and publication;

3) The known or potential rate of error of the scientific technique; and

4) Whether the theory has received “general acceptance” in the scientific community

Daubert Test: Competence of Witness

Through knowledge, practical experience, training or education

Minimally, the expert witness must know underlying methodology and procedures employed and relied upon as a basis for the opinion.

Not hard test to determine

9

Material and Relevant

Is the issue related to the determinations to be made?

If yes, then the evidence is material.

Does the evidence make the fact more or less likely to be true?

If yes, then the evidence is relevant.

Both are mistakenly called relevant.

Weight and credibility are relevant and material (Rule 104 (e))

Rule 401. Relevant Evidence

Evidence having any tendency to make the existence of a fact of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would

be without the evidence.

Rule 104(b)

When the relevancy depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon or subject to introduction of evidence sufficient to support the condition.

If the supporting evidence is not presented or is insufficient, must tell jury NOT to consider

In other words sometimes keeping order and keeping it moving means allowing things out of order.

10

Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence

Relevant evidence may be excluded if probative value substantially outweighed by:

1. The danger of unfair prejudice, or

2. Confusion of the issues, or

3. Misleading the jury, or

4. Considerations of undue delay, or

5. Needless presentation of cumulative evidence

“Prejudicial” is word often misused.

Special Types of Evidence

May or may not be admissible, depending on reason offered

Rule 406. Habit/Routine Practice

Evidence of ones habit may be admitted to demonstrate conduct on a particular occasion was in conformity with that habit

11

Rule 404. Character of Defendant or Victim

Admissible IF

Offered by Defendant

Offered by State to Rebut Defense Character Evidence from any source

Witness is subject to “fair” character evidence (See Rule 412 sexual conduct of victims)

Rule 404(b) and 609: Past Crimes

NOT Admissible to prove conformity with past acts/wrongs/crimes

Defendant’s (Rule 404 (b)) and witnesses (Rule 609)

May be admitted to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident

Not as evidence of “usual suspects”

Rule 410

Plea discussions with the State or defendant are NOT admissible

Withdrawal of plea (Guilty or No Contest), is NOT admissible

Plea bargain offer (standard or specific)

This is also not appropriate argument.

12

Rule 106 and 107 “Use before the Jury” and “Opening Door” You can’t bring something up then hide the

whole truth behind an objection.

Can’t open your own door.

Court can warn the parties at bench.

You can ask that question, but if you do….

Example: “Have you ever been in trouble with law?” There goes your 404 b objection.

Rule 1002. Requirement of Originals

To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original or duplicate original is required except as otherwise provided in these rules or by law.

Duplicate original? (Rule 1001 (3))

17th century rules in 21st century. If the “original” is 1’s and 0’s everything made from it is a duplicate original.

Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates

A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless:

(1) Question raised to authenticity of original, or

(2) It would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original

13

Authentication

Is there any proof it is what the party says it is?

Proof is sworn testimony on the stand or in the document.

Rule 902. Self‐Authentication

Evidence of Authenticity of Document not required for:

(4) Certified Copies of Public Records

(6) Newspapers and Periodicals

(8) Acknowledge (Notarized) Documents

(10) Business Records with Affidavit (see rule)

Rule 612. Writing Used to Refresh Memory

Anything can be used,

BUT, only refreshed recollection is admissible, not item.

BUT If a witness uses a writing to “refresh” memory either while testifying or before the hearing, the adverse party is entitled to production at the hearing.

14

Privileges Rule 503 – Lawyer/Client

Rule 504 – Husband‐Wife

Rule 505 – Clergy‐Penitent

Rule 509 – Limited Physician‐Patient

Who Can Claim Privilege?

The Client, Penitent, Patient

Lawyer, Clergy, Doctor but ONLY on behalf of the Client/Penitent/Patient

In other words, it can be waived by client/penitent/patient directly or by other evidence presented by same.

Must be communicated for privileged purpose.

Medical privilege limited to “substance abuse”

Husband‐Wife Privilege

Two parts:

Privileged Communication

Privilege NOT to testify

15

Husband‐WifePrivileged Communication

Requirements:

Made Privately

To Spouse (during marriage)

Not intended to be disclosed

Rule is to protect institution of marriage, not individual

Husband‐Wife Privileged Communication

Who may claim?

Declarant

Spouse on Declarant’s behalf

Exceptions:

Communication in furtherance of crime

Relevant issue is crime against spouse or minor child

Husband‐WifePrivilege Not to Testify

Who has privilege?

Spouse

May testify if he/she wants

Invoked by “Person” (spouse of accused), or the person’s guardian or representative, but not the accused

Exceptions:

Crimes against spouse, minor child, or member of the household

Crimes that occurred before the marriage

16

Rule 201: Judicial Notice

Fact noticed must be:

Generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or

Capable of accurate and ready determination from sources the accuracy of which cannot reasonably be questioned

Well duh?


Discretionary:

Court may take notice whether requested or not

Mandatory:

Court shall take notice if:

Requested by a party, and

Supplied with necessary information


Jury Instruction:

Court shall instruct that Jury may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed.

17

Hearsay

Why gossip is not evidence

Rule 801: Hearsay

Defined;

An out of court statement

Offered in court

To prove the matter asserted

Rule 801: Hearsay

Defined;

An out of court statement

Does not matter who said it, even witness on the stand.

Remember if not sworn, can’t be evidence.

What is not under oath is not reliable.

18

Rule 801: Hearsay

Offered in court

Hearsay can be testimonial, or in documents

All documents are intrinsically hearsay.

But there are exceptions

To prove the matter asserted

“He shouted fire in the theater” is to prove he shouted, not that there was a fire.

Verbal acts are not hearsay.

Is it only relevant if it is true?

Statements that are not Hearsay

Prior Statement by a witness if

Prior Statement was given under oath at trial or hearing and is inconsistent with testimony

Consistent with testimony and offered to rebut an express or implied claim of recent fabrication or improper influence

Identification of a person made after perceiving the person

Statements that are no hearsay

Any voluntary statement made by

The defendant (a party)

Introduced by the State

Constitutional limits still apply

19

Rule 803: Hearsay Exceptions

Reliable because of circumstances of utterance

Present Sense Impression

Excited Utterance

Dying Declarations

Public Record (not police Reports)

Recorded Recollections

Statement Against Interest

Well they would not lie because…

Right to Confront Witnesses

Constitution trumps hearsay rules.

If exception applies, but statement is testimonial, still inadmissible.

Unless the witness that gave hearsay is called to testify.

Defendant has no right to confront themselves.

Right to Confront Witnesses

Testimonial means the statement or document was made in anticipation of criminal trial.

Lab reports and witness statements given under police questioning are testimonial.

911 calls and hospital records are not.

20

Controlling the Courtroom

Rule 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation/Presentation of Evidence

Controlled by the Court to:

1. Make the interrogation and presentation effective for ascertaining the truth

2. Avoid needless consumption of time

3. Protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment

Rule 614. Exclusion of Witness

“The” Rule

At the request of a party, the Court shall order witnesses excluded so they cannot hear testimony of other witnesses

Court may order on its own motion

See Bench Book, Chapter 7, Checklist 7‐1

Special rules for victims and experts.

21

How Does Court Control Presentations?

Adopt Rules of Decorum & Practice (See Reporter, Vol. 11, No.9, Summer 2002)

Require all attorneys to sign

Require Letter of Representation

Stand to make objection, sit if not addressing Court

Counsel address one another THRU the Court

Listen

Make sure you understand objection.

Ask the other party to respond (only when helpful)

Don’t let it all hang out in front of jury (approach the bench) Rule 104 (c)

Objections in Bench Trials.

No offer of proof in non‐record court

You are gatekeeper, never an advocate.

Be clear

Say “overruled” or “sustained”.

Never comment on “weight of evidence”.

Don’t over explain your rulings.

With pro se defendants have them approach

Instruct jury if properly requested to do so.

Be patient, but be firm!

22

Above all never let them see you sweat the Rules of Evidence.

Questions?

Whew! I can’t remember all of this?

There are sources to help:

Your Evidence Booklet

Take a recess to consider, read rules or call another judge or the Center to discuss an issue

TMCEC

(800) 252‐3718

AN INTRODUCTION TO EVIDENCE Page 1 FOR MUNICIPAL COURTS By: Vonciel Jones Hill

AN INTRODUCTION TO EVIDENCE For

MUNICIPAL COURTS

By: Vonciel Jones Hill Attorney/Retired Municipal Judge

July 2006

INTRODUCTION Evidence is the means by which matters are proved or disproved in a trial. Municipal Courts are, primarily, trial courts. Whether they are courts of record or not, Municipal Court trials are governed by the Texas Rules of Evidence [“The Rules”]. This paper is designed to give Municipal Court Judges a brief overview of the Rules and to discuss those Rules with special relevance and/or significance for Municipal Courts.

THE TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE

The Rules were issued as the combined civil and criminal Rules in March 1987. Before that time, there had been separate codes for civil and criminal Rules. The Rules govern the conduct of trials in all courts, including Municipal Courts. The Rules are divided into ten (10) parts, called “Articles”. Each Article relates to an aspect of a trial. The Articles are titled as follows: Article I. General Provisions Article II. Judicial Notice Article III. Presumptions Article IV. Relevancy and its Limits Article V. Privileges Article VI. Witnesses Article VII. Opinion and Expert Testimony Article VIII. Hearsay Article IX. Authentication and Identification Article X. Contents of Writings, recordings, and Photographs Articles I – IV and VIII are relevant for both live [testifying] witnesses and documents. Article V – VII are most relevant for live witnesses. Article IX and X are most relevant for documents.


Each Article is further divided into Rules. There are seventy-five (75) individual Rules. However, only about one-third of that number is significant for Municipal Courts. Moreover, of the latter group, only about twelve (12) Rules are likely to be regularly utilized in Municipal Court trials. Municipal Judges will most often have to deal with the Rules applicable to relevance and hearsay (Article IV and VIII).

SIGNIFICANT RULES FOR MUNICIPAL COURTS Article I. General Provisions Rules 102 and 1O3 Rule 102 is foundational for the whole body of evidence law. This Rule is designed to “secure fairness; eliminate unjust expense and delay; and promote evidence law so that the truth may be ascertained.” [Author’s paraphrase] Trials are vehicles for determining the truth about disputed issues. The Rules of Evidence are the wheels driving those vehicles. If, during their trials, Judges would govern themselves by Rule 102, they would most likely rule correctly on the majority of objections. Rule 103 sets out the parameters for the Judge’s rulings on evidence. Except in one limited circumstance, set out in Rule 102 (d) (fundamental error), a judicial response to evidence becomes necessary only upon action of a Party, in the form of an objection. Rule 103 articulates the criteria by which evidentiary rulings shall be governed. Article II. Judicial Notice. Rules 201 and 204 Judicial notice relieves the Party offering the evidence from the burden of presenting live witnesses. This method of presenting evidence is designed to save time and conserve judicial resources. Rule 201 indicates that judicial notice may be taken was a fact is “…not subject to reasonable dispute…” In such circumstances, it is wasteful to prove what is readily apparent. Rule 204 allows the laws of Texas cities and counties to be placed into evidence by judicial notice, rather than having to present a testifying witness. Cities – especially smaller jurisdictions – would be seriously burdened if it were necessary for the City Secretary, or other custodian of record, to appear in court each and every time a City ordinance were involved in a case.


Article III. Presumptions. At the present time, there are no Rules under this Article. The Article is reserved for future expansion. Such expansion could occur as a result of legislative enactments, judicial directive, or evolving case law. Article IV. Relevance and Its Limits Rules 401, 402, 403, 404, 406, and 410(4) Other than hearsay, relevance is the most frequently invoked objection in Municipal Courts. Relevance is a shorthand method of raising the question of whether a specific piece of evidence has any significance to a point of law or an issue in the case.

Municipal Judges should be acutely aware of Rule 404(b), “other crimes, wrongs or acts”. This Rule prohibits a Defendant’s being found guilty of a charged offense simply because such offense parallels that Defendant’s general character or usual propensity. Each offense must stand “on its own bottom.” The Prosecution is not allowed to prove simply that Bubba is a bad actor in general. Rather, it must prove that Bubba acted badly on the specifically alleged occasion. Municipal Judges will also want to be well acquainted with Rule 406, “habit, routine practice.” Cities and City employees – especially police officers – are likely to have certain ways of always completing a particular act or task. A witness’ testimony as to such general behavior, as a routine matter, is sufficient to show that the person acted that way on a specific occasion. The witness’ uncorroborated testimony is sufficient under this Rule. NOTE: this Rule is different than the “character” Rule of 404 (b). Rule 410(4) relates to Defendants’ discussions with Prosecutors. The Rule prevents any statements made during plea negotiations from being used by the State if a plea is withdrawn. Article V. Privileges Rule 504 Only one Article V Rule is likely to arise in Municipal Courts: Rule 504 “Husband-Wife Privilege”. This Rule is likely to arise within the context of domestic violence – charged as Assault. If invoked, this privilege shields spouses, in well-defined circumstances, from testifying against each other. This Rule does contain a safeguard against spouses being protected from abusing each other or named members of the household. Article V contains a number of other privileges (instances where witnesses are exempted from revealing information obtained from other persons). However those others privileges would only very rarely, if ever, arise in Municipal Courts.


Article VI. Witnesses. Rules 601(a), 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 611, 612, and 614 Witnesses are persons with knowledge and information about the matter at issue, and they are compelled to reveal such knowledge or information. Unless exempted by a specific privilege, all persons are obligated to testify if properly called to the witness stand. Special exceptions are permitted for children and insane persons. Municipal Judges will want to be aware of the Article VI Rules stated above. Rule 614 is particularly significant. Of the entire seventy-five (75) rules, only one is commonly referred to as “the Rule”. “The Rule” is Rule 614 – “exclusion of witnesses”. This Rule allows testifying witnesses to be excluded from the proceedings while others are testifying. The purpose of Rule 614 is to avoid influence and/or fabrication. Severe consequences, such as exclusion of testimony or witnesses, will result from a violation of the Judge’s instructions, once a witness is placed under “the Rule”. Article VII. Opinions and Experts Rules 701, 702, and 704 A major portion of the testimony offered in Municipal Courts is from police officers. Those officers are experts in their field. Therefore, they are qualified under Rule 702, “testimony by experts”. That Rule, as well as Rules 701 and 704, are noteworthy for Municipal Court trials. Rule 701 addresses lay [as opposed to “expert”] witnesses testifying as to their opinions about matters at issue. This Rule is not likely to arise often, and when it does, it is likely to be from witnesses such as code enforcement officers, testifying about the effects of un-corrected code problems. They do not know the effect of any particular un-corrected code violation, however, can testify about their opinion of the likely effect. Article VIII. Hearsay Rules 801, 802, 803, 804, and 805 Hearsay is the minefield of trials. Well-trained, experienced lawyers continue to struggle with hearsay rules and exceptions. In evidence case law, this area is the most prolific. “Hearsay” is probably the most common objection heard in Municipal Court trials. Therefore, Municipal Judges will want to be knowledgeable of the general rule and the many exceptions to the hearsay rules.


Article IX. Authentication and Identification Rules 901 and 902(4), (6), (10) Article IX Rules relate primarily to documents. They are designed to ensure that a document claiming to be or to represent a certain thing or circumstance actually is that thing or does represent that circumstance (such as the items in a photograph). Rule 902 [subsections (4), (6), and (10)] is significant for Municipal Courts because it allows for the “self-authentication” of various materials. Therefore, nothing is required to validate the document other than the document itself. Of interest to Municipal Judges is that both newspapers and business records are self-proving. Business records must be accompanied by an affidavit. Article X. Contents of Writings Rules 1001, 1002, 1003, and 1005 Article IX Rules provide the methodology for proving that a document or thing is, in fact, whatever it claims to be, that is, that the document or thing is genuine. Article X, on the other hand, addresses the contents of documents, or things, authenticated under Article IX Rules. Municipal Judges will want to be aware that, for the most part, duplicates are as valid as originals for evidentiary purposes. In times past, when copying methods were not as technologically advanced as they are today, the “best evidence” [that is, the request that the original of a document be produced] was far more common. In today’s times, a “best evidence” objection is not likely to be raised, however, if it is, Article X – and especially Rule 1003 – addresses the issue.

CASE LAW The Rules of Evidence have been interpreted and applied in various cases (real life situations). A Table of Cases is included at the end of this paper.

CONCLUSION Many Municipal Judges serve in non-record courts. Therefore, it may seem, initially that a working knowledge of the Rules of Evidence is superfluous. However, as the person charged with the ultimate responsibility for the trial, whether a record is made or not, the Municipal Judge will want to be familiar with the applicable Rules. This paper is offered as an introduction to a study that will continue throughout a Municipal Judge’s career.


EVIDENCE FOR MUNICIPAL COURTS

TABLE OF CASES

Article I. Lankston v. State 827 S.W.2d 907 (CCA 1992) - language of objectionsSchweinle v. State 893 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App-Texarkana 1995) - determination of admissibility

within discretion of trial court; standard of review - “clear abuse of discretion”Williams v. State 916 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist] 1996) - language of objections Article II. Bender v. State 739 S.W.2d 409 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th District] 1987), aff’d per curiam,

761 S.W.2d 378 (CCA 1988) - judicial notice of geographic location.Jenkins v. State 912 S.W.2d 793 (CCA 1995) - matters of common knowledgeLovelady v. State, 65 S.W. 3d 810 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 2002) O’Connell v. State, 17 S.W. 3d 746 (Tex. App. – Austin 2006) Garza v. State, 996 S.W. 2d 276 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1999) Barton v. State, 948 S.W. 2d 364 (Tex. App. –Ft. Worth 1997) Article IV. Brown v. State 757 S.W.2d 739 (CCA 1988) - “. . . evidence is relevant only if it tends to makethe existence of . . . [any fact] more probable or less probable.” [at 740]. Article V. Sterling v. State 814 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. App.- Austin 1991, PDR refused) - utterances privileged;acts notWeaver v. State 855 S.W.2d 116 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) - “. . . threats . . . clearly

not intended to be kept private, and [do] not fall within the purview of the rule [ofprivileges].” (at 121).

Tejeda v. State 905 S.W.2d 313 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 1995) - statements by spouse whorefuses to testify may be offered by other means.

Huddleston v. State, 997 S.W. 2d 319 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) Benitez v. State, 5 S.W. 3d 915 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 1999), writ refused)


Article VI. Reyna v. State 797 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1990, no petition) - child witness[competence to observe; capacity to recollect; capacity to narrate].Young v. State 891 S.W.2d 945 (CCA 1994) - writing used to refresh memory.Davis v. State 872 S.W.2d 743 (CCA 1994) - exclusion of witness.Flores v. State 915 S.W.2d 651 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist] 1996) - exclusion of witness Dufrene v. State, 853 S.W. 2d 86 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist. 1993) Article VII. Kelly v. State 824 S.W.2d 568 (CCA 1992) - novel scientific evidence [relevant and helpful]Emerson v. State 880 S.W.2d 759 (CCA 1994) - reliability of scientific testForte v. State 935 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. App. - Ft. Worth 1996) - expert testimony must be relevantand reliable Carter v. State, 5 S.W. 3d 316 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 1999 writ refused) Ochoa v. State, 994 S.W. 2d 283 (Tex. App. –El Paso 1999) Article VIII. Bell v. State 877 S.W.2d 21 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1994) - hearsay statement offered to show intentor motive.Jefferson v. State 900 S.W.2d 97 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1995) - business records

exception to hearsay rule.Chambers v. State 905 S.W.2d 328 (Tex. App. - Ft. Worth 1995) - statement did NOT meet

hearsay exception of present mental state.Tejeda v. State 905 S.W.2d 313 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 1995) - excited utterance exception to

hearsay rule. Hunt v. State 904 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. App. - Ft. Worth 1995) - excited utterance [where time

attenuated].Adams v. State 936 S.W.2d 313 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1996) PDR refused - time lapse related to

“excited utterance” - spontaneous utterances by children.Hernandez v. State 939 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. App. - El Paso 1996) - business records accompanied

by affidavit.Nixon v. State 937 S.W.2d 610 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1996) - statement offered to

prove truth of matter asserted.

Article IX. Kephart v. State 875 S.W.2d 319 (CCA 1994) - authentication of video tapes.Abbring v. State 882 S.W.2d 914 (Tex. App. - Ft. Worth 1994) - certified copies of public records.Williams v. State 916 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1996) - proper predicate for

admission of a letter.Gibson v. State 952 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. App. - Ft. Worth 1997) - no need for extrinsic evidence to

authenticate certified copies of public records. Kelley v. State, 22 S.W. 3d 642 (Tex. App. – Waco 2000) Angleton V. State, 971 S.W. 2d 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) Hawkins v. State, 89 S.W. 3d 674 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2002


Article X. Richardson v. State 821 S.W.2d 304 (Tex. App. - Amarillo 1991) - best evidence of contents of

document.

Falcetta v. State, 991 S.W. 2d 295 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 1999) Bullard v. State, 23 S.W. 3d 178 (Tex. App. – Waco 2000)

Presented by: Woodway - TMCEC · 2014-12-05 · The Client, Penitent, Patient Lawyer, Clergy,...

Documents

Transcript of Presented by: Woodway - TMCEC · 2014-12-05 · The Client, Penitent, Patient Lawyer, Clergy,...