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.

1

TYPES OF EVIDENCE (1)

Testimony (1) (2)

(2) (3) (4)

Personal Knowledge Expert Opinion

Documents Tangible Objects 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.

2

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.”

3

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.” 

4

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



5

RULE 605:  JUDGE AS WITNESS 

“The judge presiding at the trial may not testify 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

6

Special Class of Witnesses The Expert

Rule 702.  Testimony by Expert If  #1 scientific,  #2 technical, or  #3 other specialized knowledge 

Rule 702.  Testimony by Expert 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

7

Rule 702.  Testimony by Expert 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

8

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.

9

Rule 403.  Exclusion of Relevant  Evidence 

Relevant evidence may be excluded if  probative value substantially outweighed  by: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.



The danger of unfair prejudice, or Confusion of the issues, or Misleading the jury, or Considerations of undue delay, or 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

10

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.

11

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

12

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.

13

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

14

Husband‐Wife Privileged 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‐Wife Privilege 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

15

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?

Rule 201:  Judicial Notice 

Discretionary: 



Court may take notice whether requested or  not

Mandatory: 

Court shall take notice if:  

Requested by a party, and Supplied with necessary information

Rule 201:  Judicial Notice 

Jury Instruction: 

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

16

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.

17

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

18

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. 

19

Controlling the Courtroom

Rule 611. Mode and Order of  Interrogation/Presentation of Evidence Controlled by the Court to: 1.

2. 3.

Make the interrogation and presentation  effective for ascertaining the truth Avoid needless consumption of time 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



Special rules for victims and experts. 





See Bench Book, Chapter 7, Checklist 7‐1

20

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!

21

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

22

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. Article II. Article III. Article IV. Article V. Article VI. Article VII. Article VIII. Article IX. Article X.

General Provisions Judicial Notice Presumptions Relevancy and its Limits Privileges Witnesses Opinion and Expert Testimony Hearsay Authentication and Identification 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.

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

Page 1

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.

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

Page 2

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

Page 3

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 uncorrected 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.

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

Page 4

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.

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

Page 5

EVIDENCE FOR MUNICIPAL COURTS

TABLE OF CASES

Article I. Lankston v. State 827 S.W.2d 907 (CCA 1992) - language of objections Schweinle 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 knowledge

Lovelady 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 make the 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 not Weaver 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 [of privileges].” (at 121). Tejeda v. State 905 S.W.2d 313 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 1995) - statements by spouse who refuses 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)

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

Page 6

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 test Forte v. State 935 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. App. - Ft. Worth 1996) - expert testimony must be relevant and 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 intent or 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 AN INTRODUCTION TO EVIDENCE FOR MUNICIPAL COURTS By: Vonciel Jones Hill

Page 7

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)

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

Page 8