### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 ON MOTION F OR REHEARING

444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 NO. 03-0 4 -00 718 -CR

Ra ym ond G ar c ia , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 9044 143 , HO NORAB LE JO N N. WISSER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG
C O N C U R

R I N G / D I S S E N T I N GO P I N I O N
B e c a u s e I d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y ’ s a s s e rt i o n t h a t t h e a dm i s s i o n o f t h e on ly evidenc e supportingGar cia’ s con v i ct i on for a g g ravated assault did not violate the Confrontation Clause, I respe ctfully

dissent. B eca

use Gar cia’ s three other c onvictions were supported by evidenc e whose a dmission di d not violate the Confrontation Clause, I concur in the majority ’s af

firmanc e of tho se c on vic tio ns .

Whil e the por

tions of Office r Nore ll’s testimony rec oun t i n g J essica G arc ia’s state me nts a

bo ut t he a bd uc ti on of her

c hil d c on sti tut e d n on te sti mon ia l he ars ay be c a us e tho se statements wer e provided in a n eff ort to r esolve a

n ong oing e merg ency , the Supreme Court ha s noted that “a c onversation which beg ins as an interr og ation to determine th e n ee d for e merg ency2

assistance ” may “evolve into testim onial statements once that purpose ha s been a chieve d.” Da v is v. W ashington , 126 S. Ct. 2266, 2277 (2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court provided a solution for such a situation: “[T]rial c ourts will recog nize the point at wh ic h, fo r S ixth A me ndme nt p ur po se s, state me nts in re sp on se to i nte rr og a tio ns be c ome te sti mon ia l. Throug h in limine proce dure, they should r edac t or exclude the portions of any statement that have be c ome te sti monial , as the y do , f or e xamp le , w ithun du ly

pr e jud ic ia l po rt ion s o f o the rw ise admissible evidence .” Id. The trial c ourt err ed by not taking suc h measure s in this case. I t str a ins c re du lity to su g g e st, a s the ma jor ity do e s, that Jes sic a

Ga rc ia ’s state me nts to Norell about be ing thr eate ned with a firepla ce poker wer e elicited to a ssist t he police in r esolving
an o ng oin g e me rg e nc y

by g ivi ng the m inf

or matio n a bo ut “ wh om the y are de a lin g wi th in o rd e r t o assess the situation, the threat to their own safe ty , and possible da ng er to the potential victim.” A more plausible explanation is that J essica Garc ia vi ewe d the assault on her and the a bduction of her
c hil d a s o ne tr ans a c tio n a nd de ta ile d a ll the e ve nts inv olv e d in thi s tr a umati c in cid e nt i n r e sp on se to a g e ne ra l qu e sti on

by No re ll. I nd e e d, No re ll t e sti fi e d:
A. Iasked he r what happene d and she told me what happene d. Q. Did she just spill the whole story out a ll at onc e, or did you listen to part of it a nd the n a sk he r q ue sti on s to de ve lop mor e de ta ils , I g ue ss? A. Iwo uld

a sk he r a qu e sti on , you

kn ow , if sh e sa id a

pa rt icu lar th ing that I neede d more infor

mation on.
Jess ic a Ga

rc ia ’s c on ve rs a tio n w ithNo re ll e vo lve d f ro m no nte sti mon ia l st a te me nts , elicited to ena

ble the police to meet the ong oing emerg ency of her child’s abduction, to testimoni al3

statements when she bega n detailing past eve nts in the criminal episode. When she de scribed be ing thr e a te ne d w itha

fi re pla c e po ke r, sh e wa s a c tin g a s a wi tne ss; wh a t she sa id wa s “ a we ake r s ub sti tut e for live testimony .” See id. There fore , the t rial court should have e x cluded that por tion of Norell’s testimony . Be cause Nore ll’s testimony was the only

evidenc e supporting Gar cia’ s conviction for ag g ravated assault, I

would reve rse that c onviction. B e c a u s e Ga rcia ’s simple assault conviction wa s supported by nontestimonial hearsa

y from J essica Gar cia’ s 911 call, his enda ng eringa child convic tion was supported by nontestimonial hear say from the 911 c all and J essica G arc ia’s conve rsation with Nore ll, and his violation of prot ec t i ve orde r convic tion was supported by nontestimonial hearsa

y from the 911 c all, the
conver sation with Norell, and the a dmission i nto evidence of the prote ctive orde r at trial, Iconcur in t he ma jor ity ’s a ff

ir manc e of tho se thr e e c on vic tio ns .

________________________ _ ______________ Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Filed: De cembe r 29, 2006