Casenotes Supplementing
Baker's Texas Criminal Evidence Handbook
From recent decisions of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Including casenotes from opinions published since November 4, 1998
This page of Baker's Legal Pages contains
casenotes from recent decisions of the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. This information is
made available as a free public service for your personal,
non-commercial use. While every effort has been made to
provide accurate material at this site, it is provided "as is"
and no representations are made that it is free of
mistakes or inaccuracies. If you inform me of any mistake or
inaccuracy that you find here, I will make every effort to determine
what corrections are required and to make those changes.
Below are casenotes from recent opinions of the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals, supplementing Baker's Texas Criminal Evidence Handbook.
Each casenote is linked to the text of the opinion from which it was derived.
For links to other casesnote pages supplementing Baker's Texas Criminal Evidence Handbook, see the
Criminal Evidence Handbook Casenotes Listing.
For links to casesnote pages for other handbooks, see the
Main Casenotes Listing.
If you already know the name of a particular recent case of interest,
you may go directly to that opinion from the
Table of Recent Opinions.
Download your free copy of Baker's Paperless Law Books from the
welcome page.
Rule 1004. Admissibility of Other Evidence of Contents
The 2012 edition of Baker's Texas Criminal Evidence Handbook includes
thousands of casenotes. Use the order form to order your copy. not error to admit (Rule 1004. Admissibility of Other Evidence of Contents)
- It was not abuse of discretion to admit testimony describing what witness had viewed on video tape of crime, over contention that state failed to properly authenticate the tape because witness had no personal knowledge of where or when the tape was made. Witness testified that he destroyed the tape with a blow torch, so state was authorized to prove its contents through "other evidence" under rule 1004. Witness, who was familiar both with def and co-def, identified them on the tape and possessed sufficient knowledge to testify to the tape's contents under rule 901(b)(1) and (4). Also, the circumstances surrounding witness's viewing of the tape (that def played the tape for him to prove that they had committed murder during the course of stealing the safe) served to authenticate its contents under rule 901(b)(4). Wood v State, 18 S.W.3d 642 (May 24, 2000)
|