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.

rules (Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification)

• Under terms of Rule 101(c), Rule 901 (an evidentiary rule) cannot allow a proponent of evidence to bypass the requirements of 38.22 (a statute). Maldonado v State, 998 S.W.2d 239 (June 30, 1999)

not error to admit evidence (Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification)

• 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)

error (Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification)

• It was error to deny def's request to introduce an exemplar of his voice without subjecting himself to cross-examination. A voice exemplar is not testimonial and therefore does not waive a defendant's right to be free from self-incrimination. Saron v State (October 1, 2003, No. 1015-02)

not error to admit (Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates)

• It was not abuse of discretion to admit duplicate version of videotape of def's interview by media over Rule 1003 objection. No merit to contention that edited copy of tape had been created in a manner that was orchestrated for the greatest theatrical effect and that the questions and the order of the answers from the original tape were changed. Edited version of tape was admitted at guilt stage while unedited version was admitted at punishment. Television reporter testified that she watched the entire taped interview as it was being duplicated; that the unedited duplicate tape accurately reflected her memory of the interview which she had personally conducted; that she had watched the edited tape, and except for some portions of the interview being deleted and other portions being rearranged, it also accurately reflected the events of the interview. Newspaper reporter who did not participate in the copying or editing of the videotape also testified that both tapes accurately reflected what had occurred during the live interview. After viewing both tapes, appeals court found no evidence that def's statements were taken out of context or substantially altered in the edited version. The only portions of interview excluded from edited tape concerned information about def's family, his future plans with co-def, and statements about an extraneous bad act. Much of this information would have been inadmissible at the guilt stage. Also, def never attempted to admit the remainder of the tape into evidence under Rule 106. Hall v State (January 16, 2002, No. 73,787)

• It was not error to admit photocopies of photos of crime scene in extraneous offense, over contention that because of the poor quality of the photocopies of photographs, they did not fairly and accurately portray the originals. Trial court admitted the photocopies after the sponsoring witness testified that they accurately showed the crime scene as he had seen it, which was suff for trial court to have reasonably concluded that the photocopies were admissible under Evidence Rules 1001(4) and 1003. Ladd v State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (October 6, 1999)

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)