Evans v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Lee v. State

    639 S.W.3d 312 (Tex. App. 2021)   Cited 5 times

    In addition to Smith , we have cited Long for this proposition in other opinions. SeeCarney v. State , No. 11-15-00249-CR, 2017 WL 4545272, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Oct. 12, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ; Evans v. State , No. 11-13-00296-CR, 2015 WL 1501663, at *5 (Tex. App.—Eastland Mar. 31, 2015, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("A timely hearsay objection at trial gives rise to the requirement that the trial court conduct an Article 38.072 hearing."); Gonzalez v. State , No. 11-12-00027-CR, 2014 WL 97295, at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Eastland Jan. 9, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ; see alsoSoto v. State , No. 11-19-00214-CR, 2021 WL 3235881, at *5 (Tex. App.—Eastland July 30, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (" Article 38.072, section 2(b) sets out the requirements for the admission of an outcry witness's testimony over a hearsay objection."). Accordingly, we have determined that the preservation question was decided in Long —a timely hearsay objection gives rise to the requirement that the trial court conduct an Article 38.072 hearing. SeeEvans , 2015 WL 1501663, at *5 ; Gonzalez , 2014 WL 97295, at *4–5.

  2. French v. State

    534 S.W.3d 693 (Tex. App. 2017)   Cited 4 times

    The jury may convict on the testimony of the victim alone. See CRIM. PROC. art. 38.07; Evans v. State , No. 11-13-00296-CR, 2015 WL 1501663, at *4 (Tex. App.—Eastland Mar. 31, 2015, pet. ref'd). Appellant's case is similar to Clear v. State , where harm was shown because the jury heard evidence on separate and distinct offenses, and then in closing argument, the State argued that the jury did not need to decide unanimously if the defendant had penetrated the victim's sexual organ with his own sexual organ or with his finger.

  3. Luvano v. State

    No. 11-14-00122-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 21, 2016)   Cited 6 times

    In light of the foregoing, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it found that Appellant's statements to law enforcement personnel were made voluntarily. See Evans v. State, No. 11-13-00296-CR, 2015 WL 1501663, at *6 (Tex. App.—Eastland Mar. 31, 2015, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We overrule Appellant's first issue.