## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
NO . PD- 1753 - 08
RO SS LA YT O N FO RD , Appe l l ant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON S TATE ’ S P ETI TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ONARY REV I EW

F ROM THE S I XTH COURT OF AP P EALS

F ANNI N COUNTY P RI CE , J. , f

i l e d a c onc ur r i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h J OHNS ON , J. , j oi ne d.

CONCU RRI NG OP I NI ON S ta re d e c isis compel s m e t o j oi n t he m aj or i t y opi ni on i n t hi s caus e. I t does notcompel
m e to b e p a rticu lar lysa n g u in e a b o u t it
. Fi r s t , I agr ee thatt he cour tof ap peal s s houl d have a ddr es s ed t he ques t i on of proced ural defa ultbefo re r eversi ng t he ap pell ant’s c o n v i ct i on on t he m eri t s. U nd er these ci r cumst ance s , I us ual l ypr efe rt o r emand a caus e t o the cour tof appe al s t o addr es s t hat
s y s t emi c i s s ue i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance r at her t han t o addr es s i t our s el ves on di s cr et i onar yr evi ewF o r d — 2

1H a ley v. S tate , 173 S
. W
. 3d 510 , 515 (Tex
. Cri m . A pp. 2005). 2 See T EX . R. E V ID . 1 0 1 (d )( 1 )( A ) (“ T h ese ru les, ex cep t w ith res p ect to p riv il ege s, d o n o t app ly i n the f ol l ow i ng s i tua t i ons : . . . the de t e r m i na t i on of qu e s t i ons of

f a c tpr e l i m i na r yt o a dm i s s i bi l i tyof ev ide n ce w h en the issu e i s t o b e d eter m ine d b y the co u rt u n d er R u le 10 4 .); T EX . R. E V ID . 104 (a) (“P re l i m i nar yques t i ons c oncerni ng . . . t he adm i ss i bi l i tyo f evi dence shal l be det er m i ned bythe c ourt

. . . . I n m ak ing it s d eter m ina ti o n t h e co u rt is no t bo u n d b y the ru les o f ev ide n ce ex cep t th o se w ith re spe ctt o pri vi l eg es . ”)
.

3 See G ra n a d o s v . S tate , 8 5 S .W .3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 6 -3 0 (T ex . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); U nit ed S tates v . M atl ock , 415 U
. S
. 164, 172-77 (1974 ). i n th e a bsence of a low er courtrul i ng . B ut there i s precedent for our doing so fo r the fir st ti m e o n d iscreti o n aryrev iew , an d d o ing so in this ca se a llo w s u s to a d d ress the m o re 1 i m por t anti s s ue forw hi ch w e gr ant ed r evi ew . I t her efor e j oi n t he C our ti n r eac hi ng t he pr es er vat i on i s s ue and c oncl udi ng t hater r or , i f any , w as pr es er ved. I a lso a g re e th a t p re c e d e n t c o m p e ls us to c o n c lu d e th a t th e trial co u rt d id n o t er r to re ly on t he uns w or n, uns pons or ed off ens e re por t i n t hi s caus e. T hi s concl us i on fl ow s fr om t he fac tt hatcer t ai n pr ovi s i ons of ourT exas R ul es of Evi dence m i m i c t he Feder al R ul es of E vi dence i n m aki ng ques t i ons of t he admi s s i bi l i t yof evi dence t he t r i al court ’ s pr er ogat i ve t o deci de, uncons t r ai ned byt he rul es of evi dence t hem sel ves ; and Texas cas e l aw has 2

m i m i cked f

eder al pr ece denti n cons t rui ng t hes e pr ovi s i o n s to ap p l yt o hear i ngs t o r es ol ve p re tr ia l m o tio n s to s u p p re s s e v id e n c e . W h ile I d o u b t th e a b id in g w is d o m o f th is re g im e , I 3 d o n o td o u b tt h e Co u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n t h a ti ti s , i n f a c t , t h e c u r r e n ts t a t e o f

t h e l a w. I thas notal w ay s been s o. T he now
- defunc tT exas R ul es of C r i m i nal E vi denceF o r d — 3

4 M cV ickers v. S tate , 874 S
. W
. 2d 662 , 665 (Tex
. Cri m . A pp. 1993). 5 O l i n G uy W el l bo rn I I I , Art i c l e I of the Tex as Rul e s of Evi de nc e and Art i c l e s I an d XI of the Tex as Rul e s of

Cr i m i nal

Ev i de nc e : Ap

pli cab i l i t y of the Rul e s , Pr oc e dur al

M at t e rs , an d Pr e s e r v i ng Err or , 18 S T . M ARY ’ S L.J . 116 5, 12 00 -01 (19 87 ). See a l so S te v e n G o o d e , O li n G u y W e ll b o r n I II & M
. M i c ha e l Sha r l ot , 1 T EX AS P RA CT I CE S ER I ES : G UI DE T O T HE T EX AS R U LE S O F E VI DENCE § 1 01.1 ( 3 rd ed . 2 0 0 2 ), at 1 1 (“ S inc e u n d er T ex as l aw a jud icial d eter m ina ti o n to ad m itev ide n ce in thes e cas es is subj ectt o redeterm i nati on b ythe j ury, itw as logi cal to requ i re that the judici al determ i nati on be based sol el yupon adm i ss i bl e evi dence
. ”)
.

6 T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . a r t s . 38
. 22 § 6 ; 38
. 23. cont ai ned pr ovi s i ons , notcarr i ed overi nt o ourcur r entT exas R ul es of E v ide nce, t hat expr es s l yappl i ed t he R ul es i n t he cont extof pr et r i al s uppr es s i on hear i ngs . T he dr aft er s of 4 th e T e x a s R u les o f

C rim in a l E v id e n c e f

o u n d g o o d re a so n w h yth e y s h o u ld a p p lyw ith f u ll f o rc e in th e c o n tex t o f

p re trial s u p p re ss io n h e a rin g s in c rim in a l c a se s. B e c a u se m o tio n s to
s u p p r e s s a n i l l e g a l l yo b t a i n e d c o n f e s s i o n o r t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e t h a ti s t h e p r o d u c to f s o me ot heri l l egal i t yt hatcal l s i nt o pl ayours t at e exc l us i onar yrul e ar e “s ubj ectt o r edet er m i nat i on b yth e ju ry , i t is lo g ica l to re q u ire th a t th e [ p re trial] ju d icia l d e ter m in a tio n b e b a se d so lely
u p o n ad m is s i bl e evi dence
. ” I tdoes i ndeed s eem somew hatanomal ous t hatcur r entl aw 5 sh o u ld p e rm it a tria l co u rt to m a k e a p re trial d e ter m in a tio n w ith re sp e c t to th e a d m iss ib ili ty of evi dence , uncons t r ai ned by t he for m al rul es of evi dence , w hi l e att he s ame t i m e perm i t t i ng t he j ur ys ubs equent l yt o r evi s i t

— and perhaps t o r ever s e— t hat d eterm i nat i on att r i al , as aut hor i zed byA r t i cl e 38. 22, Sect i on 6, or A r t i cl e 38. 23, but s ubj ect t o t he cons t r ai nt s of t he f o rm a l ru les
. In th o se c a se s in w h ich th e trial c o u rt’s p re trial ru lin g o n th e m o tio n to

6F o r d — 4

7 A s J udg e M e y e r s r e m a r ke d: [W ] i tho ut the ev i den t i aryscaf f olding pro vided by the R ules [of E viden ce] , a l l e vi de nce is a d m issib le, all ev ide n ce is re lev an t and the d iscr etion w ielde d b y the trial co u rt is d iscr etion inca p ab le of ab u se. * * * U n d er the m ajo rity ’s rea d ing o f the law , the re is now no thi ng t o p r e ve nta t r i a l cou r tf r om dec i di ng the m e r i t s of a s uppr e s s i on m ot i on by rel y i ng ex cl usivelyon an un sw orn po l i ce report or l ab rep ort. N o lon ger m ust an e xper tw i tne s s a ta s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng be qu a l i f i e d. Te x. R. Evi d. 70 2. Nor m us tthe S t at e con t i nu e t o b urd en it sel f by m arshali ng w i tnesses w ho h ave p erson al kn ow l edge of the e vent s aboutw hi ch t heyare t es t i f y i ng. Tex
. R. Evid. 602. Taki ng the m aj ori ty ’s h o ldin g to its l o gical ex trem e, if the trial jud ge w ish ed to s av e ti m e, h e co u ld s im p ly c a l l hi m s e l f

a s aw i tne s s a nd t est i f

y in s uppo r tof

the e xi s t e nc e of

pr obabl e c a us e by r e a di ng a ne w s pa pe ra c c ountof the a r r e s ti nt o the r e c or d. Te x. R. Evi d. 60 5. G r anados , sup ra , a t 24 0 (M ey ers, J., disse nti ng). O r, a s I hav e ob served i n an other con t ex t : “I f a tri al cou rti s no tbo un d b ythe rules o f ev i den ce, i tm ayev en ref use to adm i tplai nlyrel evan tevidence, si nce i ti s a rul e of

e vi de nc e tha tm a ke s r e l e van t ev i dence a dm i s s i bl e ( s ubj e c tt o c e r t a i n e xce pt i ons ) a nd i rrel evan tevidence i nad m i ssi ble.” V en n u s v. S tate , 2 82 S .W .3d 70 , 78 (T ex . Crim . A pp . 200 9) (P ri ce, J. , c oncurri ng)
. s uppr es s does noteff

ect i vel ydi s pos e of t he cas e by a gui l t ypl ea, and t he def endantpr ocee ds to a ju rytrial, p re su m a b ly w e w o u ld w a n t b o th e n tit ies , jud g e a n d ju ry , to h a v e m a d e th e ir
r es pect i ve s uppr es s i on deci s i ons bas ed upon compar able ev i dence
. U ndert he curr ent
r egi m e, t hatm aynotal w ay s happen. T her e ar e ot herr eas ons t o r egr ett he curr entr egi m e. For exampl e, I do notunder s t and t he ut i l i t yof di s pens i ng w i t h a llof t he R ul es of Evi dence forp u rpo ses o f pre t r i al m ot i ons t o s uppr es s . J udge M ey er s capa bl y i l l us t r at ed t he pot ent i al dr aw backs of t hi s baby
- w i t h- t hebat hw at erappr oach i n hi s di s s ent i ng opi ni on i n G r anados
. W hy coul d t he rul emaker s not 7 have f as hi oned R ul e 104( a) i n s uch a w ay t hat i t excl udes onl yoper at i on of A r t i cl e V I I I ( t heF o r d — 5

8 E sp eciallyin th e co n tex t of p re trial su p p re ssio n h ear ing s tha t in v o lve q u estio n s o f p ro b ab le cau se o r co n sen t, ev ide n ce th at m igh t con stitu te ran k h ear say if o ff er ed a t th e trial on the m er it s w il l n o t co n stitu te h ear say at all. T h e S tate typically o ff er s m an y o u t-o f-co u rt statem en ts i n this co n tex t, no tt o establi sh the truth of an yasserti on s co ntai ned therein, b ut o nlyto est abli sh the reasonab l eness or perm i ssi bil i ty of the o f f i cer’s i nv est i gat i ve co nd uct. E.g
. , C a m p b ell v. S tate , 91 0 S. W
. 2d 475, 48 0 (T ex . Crim . A pp . 199 5). See G e or g e E. D i x & Robe r tO
. D a w s on, 42 T EX AS P RACT I CE : C RI MINAL P RACT I CE AND P ROCEDURE § 29. 133 ( 2 e d. 20 01) , a t63 0 ( “O f t e n, a c r i t i c a l i s s ue i n asuppr e s s i on nd he a r i ng i s the f

a c tua l ba s i s on w hi c h a n of f i c e r a c t e d, tha t i s , the i nf or m a t i on the of

f i c e r r e c e i ve d a nd rel i ed u po n in m aking a st op , a n arrest , or a search. W here thi s i s the case, the o f f i cer’s t est i m on yas t o what othe r s s a i d i s no the a r s a ybe c a us e the t e s t i m onyc onc e r ni ng the ou t - of
- c our ts t a t e m e ntof

the dec l ar anti s notof

f er ed ‘ t o prove the truth of the m att era ss er t ed’ as i s nec es sa ry t o m ake i thea rs ay . ”)
. 9 T EX . R. E V ID . 4 0 3 & 4 0 4
. T h ese p ro v ision s m ak e re lev an t evid en ce n ev er the less in ad m issib le be c a us e i tm a ybe ( i n the c a s e of t he f or m e r ) , ori s de e m e d t o b e a s a m a t t e rof l a w ( i n the c a s e of

the l a t t e r ) , s ubs t a nt i a l l ym or e pr e j udi c i a l tha n pr oba t i ve . Pre s um a bl y , i n ahe a r i ng be f or e the c our t , the tri al j ud ge i s capable of

discoun t i ng the prej ud i ci al po t enti al , an d f ocu si ng o nlyon the p rob at i ve v al ue, of rel evan tevidence. T herefore, there w ou l d be no com pell i ng reason t o insi stup on app l y i ng these parti cular e viden t i aryrules i n a pretri al sup pression hearing. hear s aypr ovi s i ons ) , and, per haps R ul es 403 and 404, fr om j udi ci al det er m i nat i ons of t he 8 9 admi s s i bi l i t yof evi dence

— atl eas tin the co n te xtof pr et r i al m ot i ons t o s uppr es s ? W hy sh o u ld th e f

o rm a l r u les g o v e rn in g re lev a n c e a n d a u th e n ticity , fo r in sta n c e , n o t ap p lyin th is cont ext ? Itt r oubl es m e t o s ay t hat t he rul es of evi dence m ake t he admi s s i bi l i t y of evi dence i n a pr et r i al s uppr es s i on hear i ng di s cr et i onar y w i t h t he t r i al cour t unders uch an a m orphous and unfe t t er ed s t andar d as s i m pl e “r el i abi l i t y ” w hen s o m any of t he rul es of evi dence ( s uch
as t h e ru l e s me a n t t o e n s u r e a u t h e n t i c i t y ) a r e t h e ms e l v e s ma n i f e s t l y i n t e n d e d t o c o d i f

y t he
s y s t em’s bes tes t i m at e, hamm er ed outoverm an y d ec ades of dec i s i onal l aw and cr i t i cal
comm ent ar y , of how an adj udi cat or ypr oces s can a chi eve thatver yt hi ng. Pr ofes s or s D i x and D aw s on, t o w hos e t r eat i s e t he C our t al l udes at s ever al poi nt s , haveF o r d — 6

10 G e or g e E. D i x & Robe r tO
. D a w s on, 42 T EX AS P RACT I CE : C R IM IN A L P R A CT I CE AND P ROCEDURE § 29. 132 ( 2 e d. Supp. 20 08- 2009 ) , a t21 4. nd 11 G r anados , sup ra , a t240 (M ey er s, J
. , di ss ent i ng)
. 12 W hether the p oli ce report i n this case do es, i n fac t , e st abli sh p rob able c ause i s, I also agree, n o ta n i s s u e th a ti s b e f

o r e u s i n th i s p e t i t i o n f

o rd i s c r e t i o n a r yr e v i e w. al s o ques t i oned t he advi s abi l i t yof ourhol di ng i n G r anados , not i ng t hat h e a rin g s o n m o tio n s to su p p re ss e v id e n c e a re d if f e re n t th a n o th e r h e a rin g s to det er m i ne ques t i ons of fa ct pr el i m i nar y t o admi s s i bi l i t y of evi dence , i n a w ay t hatm akes appl i cat i on of rul es [of evi dence ] appr opr i at e. I s s ues r egar di ng t he lega li tyo f m an n er in w h ich e v iden ce is ob tai n ed are g e n e ra ll ym o re compl i cat ed and r equi r e more ext ens i ve expl or at i on— as a gene r al m at t er— t hat [s i c] i ssues pr esent ed b yotherevident i aryqu est i on s. T h e iss u e s a t trad iti o n a l h e a rin g s o n m o tio n s to su p p re ss im p lica te m at t er s i m por t antforr eas ons ot hert han t hei rr el at i ons hi p t o t he t rut hd eterm ining fu n c tio n o f tri als. M o st ob v iou sly , o f c o u rse, th e issu es a re c lo se lyre late d to th e g o a l o f lim iti n g law e n f o rc e m e n t c o n d u c t. T h e n e e d to a ss u re f a ir a n d a c c u ra te r e so lu tio n o f th e n u m e ro u s d if

f icu lt i ss u e s re late d to t hi s col l at er al goal ar gues i n favorof appl y i ng t he rul es of evi dence
. 10 S u ch rese rva ti ons as i de, how ev er, I ag ree that, af ter G r anados ’s u n d o u b ted lya c c u ra te
c o n s t ru c t i o n o f t h e Te x a s Rul e s o f Ev i d e n c e ( whe t h e r t h e y r e p r e s ent good pol i cy o r no t) , “t her e i s now not hi ng t o pr eventa t r i al cour tfr om deci di ng t he m erit s of a s uppr es s i on
m ot i on byr el y i ng excl us i vel yon an unsw or n pol i ce r epor t [. ] ” A nd i f, as her e, t he appe l l ant 11 does notques t i on t he accur acy or r el i abi l i t y of t he cont ent of t hat r epor t , and i tes t abl i s hes pr obabl e ca u s e, i tm aypr ove det er m i nat i ve of the mot i on t o s uppr es s . B eca us e I do not 12 ques t ion t he corr ectnes s of t he C our t ’ s cons t ruct i on, butonl yt he w i s dom of t he rul esF o r d — 7

th e m se lv e s in th is re g a rd , I am c o n stra in e d to jo in th e o p in io n o f th e C o u rt.

Fi l ed: O ct ober21, 2009 P ub l i sh