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.

no error (Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions: Declarant Unavailable)

• Def, by his own misconduct of fatally shooting woman during a robbery or the burglary of her home, forfeited his right to confront her in court about hearsay statements she made before she died. Record clearly supported inference that def shot victims to silence them: They knew him; they lived across the street from his grandmother and were friends with her and other members of her family; def entered their home without a disguise and with a very distinguishing characteristic - his dark hair dyed blonde; there was no sign of forced entry, so he was either welcomed or walked through an unlocked door; def entered the home armed and he shot to kill; one victim, who had not even gotten up from his easy chair, was shot through the heart; other victim was also shot in the chest, and when she did not die def shot her again and again; both were shot from beyond two feet and both were left for dead. A logical inference is that def killed them because he wanted to steal their truck and their money, and he didn't want any witnesses to his crime, especially witnesses that knew him and knew where to find him. Gonzalez v State (June 21, 2006, PD-0247-05)

• It was not error to exclude audio portion of videotaped interview of def's mother and transcript of that interview, over claim it was exception to hearsay rule as a statement of personal or family history under rule 804. Def's mother's testimony concerned matters such as her own medical problems, def's difficulties with TYC, his desire to leave Cuba, his lack of legal difficulties in Cuba, and abuse inflicted on him by his stepfather. These matters do not fall under 804(b)(3). Valle v State (July 2, 2003, No. 74,137)

• It was not error to admit testimony that murder victim identified the shooter as "Ex-boyfriend." The statement qualified as a dying declaration. Victim was unavailable at trial because he was dead. The statement was made after victim had been shot seven times -- from which he never recovered -- and his statement concerned the identity of the perpetrator. Given the severity of his injuries and the manner in which they occurred, the circumstances were sufficient for the trial court to have inferred that victim believed his death was imminent. Martinez v State, 17 S.W.3d 677 (May 17, 2000)

• It was not error to deny admission of def's former testimony (from suppression hearing in instant case) under Rule 804(b), where def invoked right not to testify at trial. A defendant who invokes his Fifth Amendment right not to testify is not unavailable for purposes of Rule 804 when he seeks to introduce his own prior testimony. Guidry v State, 9 S.W.3d 133 (Dec. 15, 1999)

notes (Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting Credibility of Declarant)

• Where officer who had been def's immediate supervisor in sheriff's department testified about def's bad reputation based on that relationship, and def in cross-examination introduced def's personnel file which included documents from prior supervisors and colleagues about def's good reputation, it was not error to allow state to impeach authors of those documents with evid two of them had been fired from sheriff's department after being convicted of criminal offenses. The documents introduced by def were hearsay under TRCrE 801(d) because they were offered for truth of the matter asserted, so under TRCrE 806 credibility of declarants could be attacked as if declarants had testified, including by prior convictions allowed under TRCrE 609(a). Griffith v State, 983 S.W.2d 282 (Dec. 16, 1998)