Wallace v. State

12 Citing cases

  1. Cowan v. State

    840 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)   Cited 20 times

    Thus, authentication became an issue that was "not necessary to final disposition" in the court of appeals. The State contends that appellant failed to lay a proper predicate for admission of the subject document under Rule 803(8)(C) of the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence and also that the Report is not the type of document intended to fall within that Rule. Appellant claims that the necessary evidentiary predicate was shown by circumstantial evidence on the face of the Report, citing Edwards v. State, 551 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.Cr.App. 1977) and Wallace v. State, 782 S.W.2d 854 (Tex.Cr.App. 1989). Rule 803(8)(C) permits admission of the following public documents, as an exception to the hearsay rule, even though the declarant may be available to testify:

  2. Butler v. State

    459 S.W.3d 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015)   Cited 122 times
    Holding appellate courts apply liberal standards ensuring a trial court's determination is within the zone of reasonable disagreement

    Tex.R. Evid. 901(b)(1).See Wallace v. State, 782 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (finding that “the predicate for admission of audio tapes may be proven with circumstantial evidence”); and see also, e.g., United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 107 (D.C.Cir.1976) (en banc) (“Although the evidence bearing on admissibility should be carefully scrutinized to see if it measures up ... it may be circumstantial or direct, real or testimonial, and need not conform to any particular model.”). For example, a cellular-phone company may provide records to show that a text message originated from the purported sender's phone “under circumstances in which it is reasonable to believe that only the purported sender would have had access to the ... cell phone.”

  3. People v. District Court

    834 P.2d 181 (Colo. 1992)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that where provisions of death penalty statute were declared unconstitutional after murder committed, as long as at the time of the alleged offense defendant had "fair warning" that first degree murder conviction could result in death penalty, application of death penalty statute did not violate ex post facto clause

    00, 1010-1012 (Mont. 1979), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 970 (1980) (sentencing statutes enacted after offense could be applied to defendant without violating the ex post facto clause because they were ameliorative); State v. Biegenwald, 594 A.2d 172, 201-02 (N.J. 1991) (because it does not meet the criteria for an ex post facto law as affirmed in Dobbert, judicial construction of aggravating circumstance can be applied retroactively to an offense antedating that construction); State v. McCoy, 394 S.E.2d 426, 432 n. 3 (N.C. 1990) (changes in death penalty procedure in response to certain Supreme Court decisions are procedural and ameliorative and may be retroactively applied); Castro v. State, 749 P.2d 1146, 1150 (Okla.Crim.App. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 971 (1988) (judicial construction of statutory aggravating circumstance could be applied retroactively because defendant not subjected to change in quantum of punishment); Wallace v. State, 707 S.W.2d 928, 937-38 (Tex.App. 1986), aff'd, 782 S.W.2d 854 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989) (statutory change "involved the method of determination of appropriate punishment," and, therefore, was procedural and could be retroactively applied); Smith v. Commonwealth, 248 S.E.2d 135, 147 (Va. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 967 (1979) (no ex post facto violation because changes to death penalty statute were procedural and ameliorative).

  4. Gordon v. State

    784 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)   Cited 31 times
    Considering the length of a video as a factor in assaying its admissibility

    We determined the proper standard of admissibility for a silent motion picture is different from the audio-visual standard enunciated in Edwards v. State, 551 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.Cr.App. 1977), and concluded: In Edwards, supra, this Court adopted a seven-prong test for the admission of sound recording which has been outlined as follows: (1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony, (2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent, (3) establishment of the authenticity and the correctness of the recording, (4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made, (5) a showing of the manner of preservation of the recording, (6) identification of the speakers, and (7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement. For the purposes of proper authentication of audio recordings in trials taking place on or after September 1, 1986, see now Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 901. Wallace v. State, 782 S.W.2d 854 (Tex.Cr.App. 1989). Since the exhibit in the instant case was the visual portion of a videotape only, a silent motion picture, we conclude the rules relaying (sic) to admission of ordinary photographs are applicable.

  5. Smith v. State

    NO. 09-17-00081-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 14, 2018)   Cited 7 times

    The evidence may be authenticated by direct or circumstantial evidence. See Butler v. State, 459 S.W.3d 595, 602 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (citing Wallace v. State, 782 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)). "In ruling on the admission or exclusion of photographic evidence, the trial court is accorded considerable discretion."

  6. Lacey v. State

    No. 05-11-00755-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 28, 2013)

    The court concluded that, when Ramirez voluntarily testified in his defense at the probation revocation hearing, he waived his privilege against self-incrimination and the trial court did not err by admitting that testimony. Id. at 156; see also Chavez v. State, 508 S.W.2d 384, 386 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) ("[A]n accused, taking the stand on his own behalf, waives the [Fifth Amendment] privilege, so that his testimony may be used against him at a subsequent trial of the same case."); Wallace v. State, 707 S.W.2d 928, 934 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1986), aff'd on other grounds, 782 S.W.2d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (same). But see Nelson, 765 S.W.2d at 409 (Teague, J., concurring) (criticizing Chavez).

  7. Montgomery v. State

    383 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App. 2012)   Cited 22 times
    Holding failure to make offer of proof concerning excluded testimony waived error

    The court's request to delay the bill did not exempt appellant from making an offer of proof at a later time. See Wallace v. State, 782 S.W.2d 854, 856 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (holding that the trial court's statement it would “deny the Defendant's request to make a Bill at this time” did not discharge the appellant's duty to proffer the excluded testimony for preservation of error). Appellant has failed to preserve this error.

  8. Sanchez v. Texas Bd. Med. ex

    229 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. App. 2007)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that under substantial-evidence review, courts presume that agency's decision is valid and supported by substantial evidence and explaining that complaining party has burden of proving otherwise

    Further, the predicate for admissibility under rule 901 may be proven by circumstantial evidence. See Wallace v. State, 782 S.W.2d 854, 856-57 n. 6 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989). Sanchez complains that the Board failed to introduce evidence meeting the seven-part predicate for the admission of recordings stated in Cummings v. Jess Edwards, Inc., 445 S.W.2d 767 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.): (1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; (2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent; (3) establishment of the authenticity of the correctness of the recording; (4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made; (5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording; (6) identification of the speakers; and (7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement.

  9. Angleton v. State

    955 S.W.2d 655 (Tex. App. 1997)   Cited 4 times

    The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that direct and circumstantial evidence 1) are to be treated in the same manner for purposes of establishing the proof required for admission of sound recordings, and 2) are of equal probative weight for purposes of determining admissibility of sound recordings. See Cowan v. State, 840 S.W.2d 435, 437 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Wallace v. State, 782 S.W.2d 854, 857 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). Rule 901(b) lists several non-exclusive examples of how authentication may be accomplished.

  10. Chatham v. State

    889 S.W.2d 345 (Tex. App. 1994)   Cited 10 times
    Finding counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor's alleged misstatement of the law during closing argument when statement was proper

    Wallace v. State, 782 S.W.2d 854, 857 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989). Chatham counters by arguing that even under Edwards no proper predicate was laid.