Oliva v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Crump v. State

    No. 02-24-00063-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 2, 2025)

    Because she testified at trial, Crump's right to confrontation was not violated. See Wells v. State, 558 S.W.3d 661, 667 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2017, pet. ref'd); Oliva v. State, No. 13-15-00609-CR, 2017 WL 2608280, at *7 (Tex. App.- Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 15, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

  2. Puente v. State

    NUMBER 13-20-00014-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 17, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Therefore, the trial court's admission of Eddleman's testimony regarding their statements in the medical reports did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the complainants were subject to cross-examination at trial. See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59; De La Paz, 273 S.W.3d at 680; see also Oliva v. State, No. 13-15-00609-CR, 2017 WL 2608280, at *7 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 15, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (finding no Confrontation Clause violation where the witness read from a report prepared by a non-testifying nurse because the statements read were allegedly made by the complainant, who testified and was subject to cross-examination); Segura v. State, No. 05-15-00032-CR, 2015 WL 8273712, at *5 (Tex. App.-Dallas Dec. 8, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (determining that the Confrontation Clause had not been violated because the statements were made to a nurse for the purpose of medical treatment and not to further a criminal prosecution, and therefore, were not testimonial, and concluding in addition, that the complainant was subject to cross-examination); DeLeon v. State, No. 13-18-00480-CR, 2019 WL 4200297, at *4-5 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg Sept. 5, 2019, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

  3. Deleon v. State

    NUMBER 13-18-00480-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 5, 2019)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that witness's testimony about report by SANE not present at trial did not violate confrontation clause because "there is no dispute that [the SANE's] observations of the complainants during their examinations were part of medical reports created primarily for the purpose of legitimate medical treatment"

    Admission of the statements attributed to V.G. and F.G. did not violate appellant's Confrontation Clause rights because V.G. and F.G. testified and were subject to cross-examination at trial. See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59; De La Paz, 273 S.W.3d at 680; see also Oliva v. State, No. 13-15-00609-CR, 2017 WL 2608280, at *7 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 15, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (finding no Confrontation Clause violation where Eddleman read a patient history set forth in a report prepared by a non-testifying nurse, noting that complainant was subject to cross-examination); Segura v. State, No. 05-15-00032-CR, 2015 WL 8273712, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 8, 2015, no pet.)

  4. Wells v. State

    NO. 02-16-00209-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 28, 2017)

    Carrie was the declarant of the challenged statements, and she had been subject to cross-examination at trial about the details of her outcries to Wanda, Paul, Angela, Medina, and the school counselor. See Oliva v. State, No. 13-15-00609-CR, 2017 WL 2608280, at *7 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 15, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding testimony by nurse examiner's supervisor about patient's "verbatim" medical history reflected in nurse's sexual-assault report did not violate Confrontation Clause because patient was declarant and because patient was subject to cross-examination).