## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 1540 - 06 & 1541- 06 R A Y M O N D E A R L V IN S O N , A p p ell a n t

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE FI RST CO URT O F AP PEALS

HA RRI S CO UNTY P RI CE , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P .J ., and W OMACK , J OHNS ON , K EASLE R , H ERVEY , H OL C OM B and C OCHRAN , J J ., joi ne d. M E YE RS , J. , di d not part i ci pat e. O P I N I O N In th is c a se w e a d d re ss th e iss u e o f w h e th e r sta tem e n ts m a d e b ya n u n a v a ilab le

w i t nes s t o a pol i ce offi cer m ay be pr oper l yadmi t t ed t hr ough t he pol i ce of fi cer ’ s t es t i m ony

a t trial, in lig h t o f

th e C o n f ro n tatio n C lau se o f

th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. T h is de ter m in a tio n is depende nt on w het hert he s t at ement s ar e t es t i m oni al or no n test im oni al , as defi ned byt heVinson — 2

1 126 S.Ct . 2266 (2006). 2 Th e a pp e lla nt did c onte st the a dmi ssibil ity of the se state me nts be fo re the c ourt of a pp e a ls, but th at c ourt

he ld t hat the st ate ment s w e reno nte sti mon ia l and thea pp e lla nt d oe s n ot p re se ntl y challeng e that conc lusion in hi s petition for discre tionary revie w. U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t i n D avis v. W as hi ngt on . 1

THE F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL P OS TU RE O n D ece m ber6, 2004, H ar ri s C ount yD eput ySher i ff St ephen Chapm an r es ponded t o a r epor t by a 9-1- 1 di s pat ch oper at or of a pos s i bl e emer gencyatt he apa r t m entbel ongi ng to L a lan ia H o lli m o n a n d th e a p p e llan t. T h e 9 -1 -1 o p e ra to r to ld C h a p m a n th a t a h a n g -u p c a ll had bee n m ade a nd t hat w hen t he oper at or r etur ned t he i nt er r upt ed cal l , a mal e ans w er ed and

r es ponded t hatt her e w as no emer gency . H ow ever , t he oper at or hear d a di s t urbance i n t he backgr ound and s om ebodyy el l i ng forpol i ce a s s i s t ance . W hen C hapman arrive d att he

sc e n e , H o lli m o n a n sw e re d th e d o o r a n d a p p e a re d to b e b lee d in g a n d in p a in f ro m re c e n tly i nfl i ct ed i nj ur i es . C hapman as ked her w hat had happened and H ol l i m on r es ponded t hather b o y frien d h ad assa u lt ed h er. T h ese stat em en ts co n s titu te th e firstp o rt ion o f H o ll im o n ’s

s t at ement s . A s t he appel l ant does not cont es t t he admi s s i bi l i t yof t hes e s t at ement s , w e nee d not fur t heraddr es s t hem i n t hi s opi ni on. 2 H ol l i m on t hen i dent i fi ed her as s ai l ant as “V i ns on, ” t he appel l ant , and r ecount ed t he det ai l s of t he as s aul t , cl ai m i ng t hat her as s ai l ant had knocked t he phone outof herhand w hen she cal l ed 9 -1- 1. T hese st at em ents con st i t ute t he second po rt i on of H oll i m on ’s st at em ents
.Vinson — 3

3 Th e re c ord is un c le ar e xac tly why Ho lli mon

wa s unav ail abl e. H ow e ve r, thi s d e ta il i s un imp or tant t o th e iss uebe fo reus . 4 541 U.S. 36 (2004). I t i s t hes e s t at ement s t hatt he appel l ant pr es ent l y as s er t s w er e t es t i m oni al forC onfr ont at i on C l aus e purpos es . D ur i ng t he quest i oni ng, t he appel l ant came i nt o t he r oom and demanded t hatH ol l i m on “t el l [t he deputy ] t he t r ut h” and “ don’t l ett hem t ake me t o j ai l

. ” C hapman

n o te d t hatt he appe l l antw as “veryexci t ed, ” s hi r t l es s , and s w eat i ng pr ofus el y . C hapman

s ecur ed t he appe l l antby p lacing hi m i n t he bac k of hi s pat r ol car , and t hen r es um ed ques t i oni ng H ol l i m on. T he appe l l antw as char ged byi nfor m at i on w i t h as s aul t of a hous ehol d m ember and i nt er fer ence w i t h an emer gencyphone c a l l

. A t t r i al , C hapman r ecount ed the s t at ement s m ade t o hi m byH ol l i m on, s i nce H ol l i m on w as unavai l abl e as a w i t nes s . T he appe l l antobj ect ed 3
to th e p o rtio n o f

C h a p m a n ’s te stim o n yth a t re late d H o lli m o n ’s id e n tific a tio n o f th e m a n in th e ro o m a s “V in so n ,” as w e ll a s h e r d e taile d d e sc rip tio n o f th e a ss a u lt an d in ter f

e re n c e w ith

an em ergency cal l , on t he b asi s that al l of t his t est i m on yviol at ed the C on front at i on C l ause and C r aw

f or d v. W as hi ngt on . T he t ri al c our t over r ul ed t he appe l l ant ’ s obj ect i on, but

4 al l ow ed t he appe l l anta runni ng obj ect i on t o C hapman’ s t es t i m o n y . T he appe l l antw as ul t i m at el yconvi ct ed of bot h offe ns es . Pu n ishm en t w as as s es s ed foreac h offe ns e at

c o n f i n e m e n t i n j a i l f

o r 3 6 5 d a ys a n d a f

i n e o f $ 5 0 0 , w i t h t h e j a i l t i m e t o r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y. O n a p p e a l to th e F ir s t C o u rt o f A p p e a ls , th e a p p e lla n t a s s e rt e d , in ter a lia , t hatt he t r i alVinson — 4

5 See Crawford v. W

ashington , su

pra (h oldingthat a dmi ssi on of test imo nial st ate me nts rec ounted by

a third par

ty violate the Confront at i o n C l au s e unless the de fenda nt had a prior opportunity

to cross-e x amine the de clar ant); Davis v. W ashington , supra (clarifying which statements ar e testimonial and which state ments arenontestimonial).

6 Vi ns on v . S

tate , 221 S.W .3d 256, 267 (Tex. App.–Houston [1 Dist.] 2006). st 7 T EX . R. A PP . P. 66.3 (b). 8 U. S. C O N ST . amend. VI

. co u rth ad erred in allow ing H o ll im o n ’s st atem en ts i n to ev iden ce th rou g h C h ap m an ’s t es t i m onybeca us e doi ng s o vi ol at ed t he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e of t he Si xt h A m endment

. T he

c o u r t o f a p p e a l s f

o u n d t h a t , c o n s i s t e n t wi t h t h e h o l d i ngs i n C ra w for d and D a v is , t hese stat em en ts w ere n o n test im o n ial an d there fo re pro p erly ad m it ted. C o n seq u en tl y , the c o u rt 5 of appe al s aff

i r m ed t he j udgm entof t he t r i al cour t
. W e gr ant ed t he appe l l ant ’ s pet i t i on for 6 di s cr et i onar yr evi ew t o addr es s t he quest i on of w het hert he cour t of appe al s pr oper l yappl i ed t he hol di ngs of C r aw

f or d and D a v is , si nce thi s i ssue i s l i kelyt o recur i n fu t ure cases. 7

A N A L Y S IS T he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e of the Si xt h A m endment guar ant ees t hat“[i ] n al l cr i m i nal prosecuti on s t he acc used sha l l enjoyt he ri gh t
. . . t o b e con front ed w i t h t he w i t nesses agai nst h im .” In h is s o le g ro u n d f o r re v iew , th e a p p e llan t a rg u e s th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls e rre d in 8 fi ndi ng t hat t he t r i al cour t pr oper l y over r ul ed t he appel l ant ’ s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e obj ect i on to th e ad m issi o n o f st atem en ts m ad e by H o ll im o n to C h ap m an . In 20 0 4 , the S u p rem e C o u rt hel d t hatt he C onfr ont at i on C l ause “w oul d not have a l l ow ed admi s s i on of t es t i m oni alVinson — 5

9 Crawf ord v. W ashington , su

pra , at 53-54 (e mphasis added)

. 10 Davis v. W

ashington , su

pra , at 2273-74. st atem ents of a w i t nes s w ho di d not appea r at t r i al unl es s he w as unavai l abl e t o t es t i fy , and t he def endanthad a p ri or oppor t uni t yforcr os s exami nat i on. ” I n t he i ns t antcas e, t he 9 appel l antdi d not have a pr i or oppor t uni t yt o cr os s - exami ne H ol l i m on. T her efore, t he admi s s i bi l i t y of t hes e st at ement s t hr ough C hapman’ s t es t i m ony hi nges on t he det er m i nat i on

o f w h e th e r t h e s ta te m e n ts a re te s tim o n ia l o r n o n te s tim o n ia l. Re c ent l y , i n D avis v. W

as hi ngt on , the S u p rem e C o u rtclarified th e d ist inction b et w een tes tim o n ial a n d n o n tes tim o n ial s tate m e n ts, h o ld in g th a t:

W it ho ut at t em pti ng t o p roduce an ex hau st i ve clas si fi cat i on of a ll c on cei vab l e st at em ents –o r even al l con cei vab l e st at em ents i n r espon se to p o lice in ter ro g a tio n

– a s e ith e r te stim o n ial o r n o n tes tim o n ial, it su f f ice s to d ec ide the pr es entcas es t o hol d as fol l ow s : St at ement s ar e nont es t i m oni al w hen made i n t he cour s e of pol i ce i nt erro g ati on underci r cumst ance s o b jec tiv e lyin d ica tin g th a t th e p rim a ryp u rp o se o f th e in ter ro g a tio n is to e n a b le p o li ce a s s i s t ance t o m eetan ongoi ng emer gency . T heyar e t es t i m oni al w hen t he ci r cumst ance s objecti v el yi ndi cat e t hatt her e i s no s uch ongoi ng emer gency , and t hat t he pri m ar ypurpos e of the i nt er r ogat i on i s t o es t abl i s h or pr ove pas t event s pot ent i al l yr el evantt o l at ercr i m i nal pr os ecut i on. 10 T h u s, th e iss u e in th is ca se b e c o m e s w h e th e r, a t th e tim e th a t H o lli m o n m a d e th e sta tem e n ts t o C hapman, ci r cumst ance s w er e pr es ent t hat w oul d obj ect i vel y i ndi cat e t he exi s t ence of an ongoi ng emer gency . T he D a v is cour t not ed a non- exhaus t i ve l i s tof fa ct or s t o cons i derw hen det er m i ni ng w het hers t at ement s w er e made dur i ng on ongoi ng emer gency : 1) w het hert he situ a tio n w a s s til l in p ro g re ss ; 2 ) w h e th e r th e q u e stio n s so u g h t to d e ter m in e w h a t is p re se n tlyVinson — 6

11 Davis v. W

ashington , su

pra , at 2278. 12 184 S.W .3d 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 13 Vi ns on v . S

tate , su pra , at 265-66. happeni ng as oppos ed t o w hathas happene d i n t he pas t ; 3) w het hert he pr i m ar ypurpos e of t he i nt er r ogat i on w as t o r ender ai d r at her t han t o m emori al i ze a poss i bl e cr i m e; 4) w het her t he ques ti o n ing w as conduct ed i n a s epar at e r oom , aw ayfr om t he al l eged a t t acke r ; and 5)

w het hert he eve nt s w er e del i ber at el yr ecount ed i n a s t ep- by

- s t ep fa s hi on. W e ar e conc er ned 11

w ith the c o u rto f a p p ea ls’ s co n clus ion reg ard ing the f o u rt h fa ctor. C i t i ng our deci s i on i n W a ll v. S ta te , t he cour t of appea l s s t at ed t hat i t w oul d r el yon

12
t he t r i al cour t ’ s i m pl i ci t det er m i nat i on of hi s t or i cal fac t t hat t he appe l l antw as pr es entdur i ng the en ti re ti m e t hatC hapman ques t i oned H ol l i m on. I t s ai d, “[g] i ven t he t r i al cour t ’ s l egal

r ul i ng and t he fa ctt hatappel l ant ’ s cont i nued pr es ence dur i ng H ol l i m on’ s r emai ni ng

s t at ement s w oul d have suppor t ed t hat r ul i ng . . . t he t r i al cour t i m pl i ci t l y . . . det er m i ned t hat t he appel l ant w as pr es ent
. ” I n ar r i vi ng at t hi s concl us i on, t he cour t of appe al s r eas oned t hat 13 C h a p m a n ’s r e c o llec tio n o f e v e n ts f

o llo w e d a p a rticu lar c h ro n o lo g ica l o rd e r th a t w o u ld

s uppor t t hi s i nt erpr et at i on, and t hatats ever al poi nt s dur i ng hi s t es t i m ony , C hapman se emed t o i m pl yt hatH ol l i m on’ s s t at ement s w er e made befor e t he appe l l anthad bee n s ecur ed. A ft er

re v iew in g th e tes tim o n yo f C h a p m a n , w e a g re e th a t s o me of w hatH ol l i m on t ol d C hapman

c le a rl yo c c u rr e d w h ile th e a p p e lla n t w a s p re s e n t, v iz : th e f ac t th at “V inso n ” a ssau lt ed h er,Vinson — 7

and t hatt he appe l l anti s “V i ns on. ” H ow ever , t he r ecor d m akes equal l ycl ear that t he appel l antw as not pr es entw hi l e H ol l i m on r ecount ed t he det ai l s of t he as s aul t t o C hapman.

I de nt i f i c at i on o f

t he A ppe l l ant T he appe l l antfi r s t cl ai m s t hatH ol l i m on’ s i dent i fi cat i on of hi m as “V i ns on” w as tes tim o n ial in n a tu re a n d th u s v io late d th e C o n f ro n tatio n C lau se w h e n C h a p m a n tes tifie d to t hi s s t at ement
. W e di s agr ee. D ur i ng hi s di r ectexami nat i on, C hapman st at ed: [A ] bl ack m al e cam e fr om t he l i vi ng r oom ar ea, and w as s ay i ng “Tel l hi m t he t rut h. T el l him t he truth. ” A nd , he – t his m al e cam e ou t and he w as – w as – he had no s hi r t on. A nd, he w as s w eat i ng pr ofus el y . A t t hatpoi nt , I as ked her w ho he w as ? [si c] She des cr i bed hi m as her boy fr i end .

. . . A nd, t ol d m e t hat h is n a m e w a s “ V in s o n .” T h e n , o n re -d ire c t ex a m in a tio n , C h a p m a n re itera ted th is s tate m e n t: [St at e] : B ut , i ni t i al l y , w hen – w hen he t ol d – w hen [H ol l i m on] t ol d y ou

t hat[t he appe l l ant ] w as t he one w ho had as s aul t ed her , w as [t he appel l ant ] t her e? [C hap m an]: Y es. T hes e t w o exce rpt s fr om C hapman’ s t es t i m ony unequi vocal l y s how t hat t he appe l l antw as pr es entw hen H ol l i m on i dent i fi ed hi m as “V i ncent , ” an d as s er t ed t hathe w as t he one w ho had as s aul t ed her

. W e agr ee w i t h t he cour t of appe al s t hatup t o t hi s p o int, befor e t he appel l anthad bee n s ecur ed i n t he pat r ol car , t he t r i al cour t coul d r at i onal l yhave c oncl uded t hatanyi nt er r ogat i on w as nont es t i m oni al

. T he t r i al cour t coul d r eas onabl y have found t hat C hapman w as s t i l l as s es s i ng t he sit u ati on and t hat , unt i l t he appe l l antw as s ecur ed, anVinson — 8

14 Preliminary

questions of the admissibility of evide nce ar e for

the trial cour

t to determine. SeeTex. R. Evi d. 104(a) . Although therule itself is silent with respec t to the standard of proof, like th e S u p r e m e C o urt , “ [ w ] e h av e tr a d i t i o n a l l y r e qu i r e d th atth e s e m att e r s b e e s t a b l i s h e d b y a preponde ranc e of proof.” See Bourjaily v. United States , 483 U. S. 171 , 1 75 (1 98 7) (b e c a us e F e d. R. Ev id. 10 4( a ) i s si le nt o n th e sta nd ard of proo f t heCou rt mus t obse rv e in re so lvi ngthe sequ e sti on s, the Court resor

ts to past case la

w which require s the proponent of the e videnceestablish preliminary fa c tua l qu e sti on s by a pr epo nd e ra nc e of proo f ) ; Al

v arad o v . S tate , 9 12 S.W. 2d

19 9, 21 5 ( Te x. Crim. App. 1995) ( citing

Rule 104(a) in stating that “The State, as the proponent of the evidenc e, had the burden of provingto the trial court, by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e, that . . . testimony qualified as an a doptive admission under Rule 801(e )(2) (b)” ).

15 See Idaho v. W

right , 49 7 U.S . 805 , 8 16 (1 99 0) (“ thec rux of t hequ e sti on

pr e se nte d is the re fo rewh e the r t

he State , as the pr op on e nt of e vid e nc e pr e sumpt ive ly ba rr e d b y thehe ars ay

ru le and th e C o n fr o n tation Clause, has ca rried its burde n of provingthat the . . . statements . . . bore sufficie nt indicia of re liability to withstand scrutiny

under theClause”)

. Cf

. Bourjaily v. United States, su pra , at 176 (“ we hold that when the preliminary fac ts releva

nt to Rul e 801(d) (2)( E) [of the Fe dera l Rules of Evidence ] are disputed, the off eringparty must prove them by a prepondera nce of the evidenc e.”) ; Cofield v . S tate , 891 S.W. 2d 95 2, 95 4 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 19 94 ) (i n c onte xt of Rul e emer gencys i t uat i on w as ongoi ng. W e need not pr ocee d anyfur t herw i t h t hi s anal y s i s s i nce th is a sp e c t o f

th e trial c o u rt’s ru lin g is p lain lysu p p o rte d b yth e re c o rd . T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls d id n o t er r to u p h o ld th e trial c o u rt’s r u lin g in th is re sp e c t. D e ta iled D e sc r ip tio n o f th e A ss a u lt T he appe l l antnextcl ai m s t hatH o l l i m on’ s det ai l ed des cr i pt i on of t he as s aul t w as t es t i m oni al i n natur e and t hus C hapman’ s convey ance of t he det ai l s t o t he j ur yvi ol at es t he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e. W e must agr ee w i t h t he appel l ant
. I n our cr i m i nal j us t i ce s y s t em, t he pr oponentof evi dence or di nar i l yhas t he bur den of e s t ab li s hi ng t he admi s s i bi l i t yof t he pr offe r ed evi dence

. I f no obj ect i on i s m ade, t he evi dence i s gener al l ydeemed admi s s i bl e. 14 H ow ever , once a n obj ect i on i s m ade, t he pr oponentm us t demonst r at e t hatt he pr offe red evi dence over comes t he s t at ed objecti on. T hi s r ul e appl i es i n t he i ns t antcas e. O nce the 15Vinson — 9

803(24) of

the Texas Rules of

Criminal Evidence, sincethe “a ppellant pre serve d error by raisingan ob je c tio n, theburd e n th e n b e c ame theState ’s to s ho w t hat th e e vid e nc e wa s a dmi ssiblepurs ua nt t o so me e xcepti on

. . .” ); Me ad

or v . S tate , 812 S.W .2d 330, 3 3 3 (T ex . C ri m . App. 1991) (“ the proponent of thestatement has the burden of showing

. . . that the statement doe s in fact mee t the re qu ir e me nts of Rul e 80 1( e )( 2) (E )” of the Te xas Rul e s of Crimi na l E vid e nc e ); Mo ntgom e ry v . S tate , 8 1 0 S

. W
. 2 d 3 72, 387 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (on re hearing on Court’ s own motion) (oncean objection is made c oncer

ning e x trane ous offe nses, the propone nt of the evide nce must satis fy the tria l c ourt that th e e vid e nc e “ ha s r e le va nc e be sid e s it s te nd e nc y

‘t o pro ve char act e r o f a

pe rs on in orde r t o s ho w that hea c te d in c on fo rm ity

the re wi th’ ” ); Ga rc i a v . S tate , 7 9 2 S. W. 2 d

8 8 , 9 5 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1990) (re quiring the S tate to “lay the proper predicate” for the admissibili ty of evide nce under Art. 38.072 of the Texas Code of C riminal Procedur e which deals with hearsay statements of c hil d a bu se vic tim s) ; and Long v . S tate , 800 S.W .2d 545, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (plac ing the burd e n o n th e pr os e c uto r “ a s p ro po ne nt o f t hee vid e nc e . . . to satis fy e a c h e le me nt o f h is p re dic ate for a dmission of the mother’s testimony pursuant to Art. 38.072” ). appel l antw as gr ant ed a runni ng C raw f ordobj ect i on t o C hapman’ s tes t i m ony , i t w as i n c u m b e n t o n t h e S t a t e t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f t h a t t e s t i m o n y. It is c le a r f

ro m th e re c o rd th a t w h e n C h a p m a n a rriv e d a t th e sc e n e , H o lli m a n to ld C hapman t hatherboy fr i end, “V i ns on, ” w ho came i nt o t he r oom as t heys poke, had as s aul t ed her

. T hi s muc h , a s we h a v e a l r e a d yh e l d , was n o n t e s t i mon i a l

. Howev e r , t h e f o l l ow i ng

e x c h a n g e o c c u rre d d u rin g C h a p m a n ’s d ire c t ex a m in a tio n w ith re sp e c t to w h a t H o lli m a n to ld h im a f ter th a t in iti a l, ba re -f

a c t sta tem e n t: A

. . . A nd, I began t o ques t i on heraboutt he assa u lt

. A nd, dur i ng t he ques t i oning

– y ou know – a bl ack mal e ca m e fr om t he l i vi ng r oom ar ea, and w as s ay i ng, “Tel l hi m t he t r ut h. T el l hi m t he t r ut h. ” A nd, he

– th is m a le c a m e o u t a n d h e w a s – w a s – h e h a d n o s h ir t o n . . . . C hapman t hen r el at ed t he det ai l s of t he as s aul t as H ol l i m on des cr i bed t hem t o hi m . O nce he had r el at ed t he det ai l s , t he fol l ow i ng col l oquyens ued: Q N ow , aft ery ou s poke w i t h M s . H ol l i m on, w hatdi d y ou – w hatdi d y ou do? A W el l , att he t i m e, aft er s he i dent i fi ed M r . V i ns on as bei ng herat t acke r – and,Vinson — 10 hi s – and, beca us e of hi s agi t at ed st at e att he mom ent– I s ecur ed M r . V i ns on. A n d , I es c o rte d h im to m y p a tro l c a r. I ca lled f o r an o th e r u n it t o c h e c k b yw ith m e. Q O k a y. A A nd, I pl ace d hi m i n t he ba ck seatof m ypat r ol car . Pendi ng anyfur t her in v e stig a tio n o n w h a t h a p p e n e d re g a rd in g th e – th e a lleg e d a ss a u lt. Q A nd, w hat o t hers t ep – t he pendi ng i nves t i gat i on – w hatot hers t eps i n t he i nves t i gat i on di d y ou t ake? A I – I – I d o n e f

u rth e r in ter v iew w ith th e – w ith th e C o m p lain a n t. Q A nd, di d t hatr eaf fi r m w hathad happe ned? A Y es , i t di d. Al t h o u g h t h e s e p a s s a g e s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t wa s i n d e e d t a k e n t o t h e p a t r o l c a r a t s o me poi nt dur i ng C hapman’ s i nt er vi ew w i t h H ol l i m on, i t i s di ffi cul t t o det er m i ne exa ct l yw hen. B u t o n r e - d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n o f C h a p m a n , t h e S t a t e c l a r i f i e d t h e c h r o n o l o g y: Q W as t he def

endantt her e w hen M s . H ol l i m on w as – w as t el l ing y ou w hathappene d? A ( N o r es pons e) Q W as he i n t he s ame r oom ? T he s ame ar ea? W her e w as he? A W hen I i nt er vi ew ed her i n det ai l about

— r egar di ng w hat happene d — I h a d t a k e n t h e De f

e n d a n t f r o m t h e r e s i d e nc e a nd pl a c e d h i m i n my p atrol ca r. T hi s pas s age cl ear l y s how s t hat C hapman had re m oved t he appel l ant pr i or t o i nt er vi ew i ng H ol l i m on about t he det ai l s of t he as s aul t
. B eca us e t he appe l l antw as not pr es entdur i ng t he

rec o u n ti n g o f the a ssau lt , an d n o o ther D a v is fac t or s i ndi cat e t hatan emer gencys i t uat i on w asVinson — 11

16 184 S.W .3d 730, 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 17 The re cord is cle ar t h at th e ap p ell ant enter ed the room in which Chapman and H ollimon we reloc ate d at so me po int duri ngthequ e sti on ing . H oll imo n’ s inju ri es inc lud e d s wo lle n lips , abra sions, a severe laceration on her lowe r lip, and both fre sh and dried blood on he r fa ce a nd on the towel she wa s holding. Mea nwhile, the appellant was a ppare ntly shirtless, sweatingprofuse ly , and demandingthat Hollimon not let the pol ice take hi m to jail. Chapman, as the only office r yet at the scene , had to dea l with an injured woman and a phy sically ag itated m an. Thus, we do not question thefa c t that the tri a l c ourt c ou ld rationally

have de termined that ther e wa s an ong oing e merg ency still i n p r o g r e s s , H o lli m o n ’s s tate m e n ts to C h a p m a n c o n c e rn in g th e d e tails o f th e a ss a u lt

w ere test im o n ial in n ature an d thu s ina d m issi b le un d er C raw f ord

.

A s not ed i n W

a ll v. S ta te , a re v iew ing co u rtsh o u ld typ ic a lly de fe r t o a tri al co u rt ’s deter m i nati on of hi st ori cal fact s. If, for exam ple, a w i t ness m akes co nfli ct i ng st at em ents , 16

w e gene r al l ydefe r t o t he t r i al cour t as t o w hi ch st at ement i s m or e cr edi bl e. L i kew i s e, w e do t he s ame w hen t w o w i t nes s es gi ve conf l i ct i ng t esti m o ny , or anyt i m e ambi guous evi dence

m ay r eas onabl y gi ve ri s e t o confl i ct i ng i nfer ence s . B ut w hen t he t r i al cour t ’ s r ul i ng cannot pos s i bl y be der i ved fr om t he hi s t or i cal fac t s , w e m us t keenl y r evi ew t he i s s ue. H er e, t he t r i al

co ur t ’ s fi ndi ng, t hats t at ement s H ol l i m on m ade w er e non- t es t i m oni al , s i m pl ycannotbe d ed u ce d from C hapman’ s t es t i m ony . T he fa cti s , C hapman’ s s t at ement on r e- di r ect exami nat i on cl ear l yi ndi ca te s t hatt he appe l l antw as not pr es entw hen H ol l i m on r ecount ed t he det ai l s of t he ass aul t
. W i t h t he appel l ant s ecur el yr emoved fr om t he ar ea, t he s i t uat i on t ur ned i nt o a non- emer gencys et t i ng i n w hi ch C hapman w as s i m pl yi nt er vi ew i ng H ol l i m on

c o n c e rn in g th e a lleg e d a ss a u lt. 17Vinson — 12

situation when Chapman first a rrived on thescene . But onc e the a ppellant was r emoved, Hollimon’s injurie s w e r e n o t s o thr e ate n in gth at t h e e me r g e n c y

s it u ati o np e r s is te d

e v e nin th e a p p e ll ant’ s absenc e. CO NC L US I ON W e h o ld th a t H o lli m o n ’s in iti a l id e n tific a tio n o f h e r a ss a ilan t as th e a p p e lla n t, “V i nson , ” w as not t est i m on i al i n natur e, and t hu s d i d no t viol at e t he C on front at i on C l ause of t he Si xt h A m endm en t. H ow ever , H ol l i m on’ s s t at ement s t o C hapman concerni ng t he d e tails o f th e a ss a u lt w e re im p ro p e rlya d m itt e d b y th e trial co u rt b e c a u se th e S tate f a iled to

e sta b lish th a t th e sta tem e n ts w e re n o n tes tim o n ial. T h e re f o re , the a d m iss io n o f

th o se d e tails i nt o evi dence t hr ough t he vehi cl e of Chapm an’ s t es t i mon yv i o l a t e d th e Con f r ont at i on C l aus e. T he judgm ent of t he co urtof ap peals i s affi rm ed in partand rever sed i n part , and t he cau se i s r em and ed to t hat courtfor a harm analy si s.

D el i ver ed: J anuary16, 2008 P ub l i sh