Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The police were called to the defendant’s home by the defendant’s 16-year-old son. The son told one of the arresting officer that he and the defendant had a verbal argument earlier that night, and that the defendant had shoved him, threw a wooden spoon at him, pinned him down, and twice punched him in the face. At the defendant’s trial for the misdemeanor offense of assaulting a family member, the state’s sole witness was one of the arresting officers, who testified as to what the son told him. The trial court overruled the defendant’s hearsay objections to the officer’s testimony without first getting a response from the state, and the defendant was convicted. At the punishment phase, the defendant took the stand, and on cross-examination, the state asked him about threats he allegedly made against his wife, the officer who investigated the alleged threats, and the officers who arrested him for the current offense. The defendant denied all making the threats. The trial court sentenced the defendant to one year in prison and fined him $2,000. On appeal, the defendant complains of the trial court’s rulings on his hearsay objections, the legal sufficiency of the evidence, and the introduction of the threat evidence during the punishment phase. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court notes that neither side now disputes that the officer’s testimony about what the defendant’s son told him was admissible as an exception to hearsay as an excited utterance. The defendant argues, though, that the trial erred when it did not require a response from the state before ruling on the defendant’s objections. After reviewing a half-dozen cases, the court finds no support for imposing such a requirement. “There seems to be no compelling reason to require the proponent of hearsay testimony to provide an exception to the hearsay rule when the trial court immediately rules in the proponent’s favor. If the trial court is already prepared to rule in the proponent’s favor, the issue must be clear to the court without additional clarification.” Because the defendant’s legal sufficiency argument is predicated on a finding in his favor on the hearsay issue, the court overrules this point of error, too. As for the state’s introduction of the alleged prior threats, the court notes that the defendant’s only objection was that the question went beyond the scope of the evidence at trial; at appeal he argues that the alleged threats were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the arguments at trial and on appeal do not match, the court overrules this point of error, too. OPINION:Fowler, J.; Yates, Hudson and Fowler, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.