## NO. 12

- 1 1

- 00 3 5 6

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DEMARCUS A NDRE WADE

, § APPEAL FROM THE 420 TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Demarcus Andre Wade appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. After finding him

guilty, the jury assessed punishment at thirty years of imprisonment . In his sole issue, Appellant

conten ds the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony. We affirm.

B ACKGROUND

As he walked to his residence hall on the campus of Stephen F. Austin University one

night, Manuel Villanueva was approached by two men in a gold car. The passenger got out of the

car and robbed Villanueva at gunpoint. Villanueva’s debit card was used at a gas station that

night. Video from the gas station led investigators to the vehicle used in the robbery. Britney

Thorn, the owner of the vehicle, identified Appellan t as the passenger riding in the vehicle on the

night of the robbery. Appellant entered a not guilty plea. However, the jury found him guilty

and assessed a thirty year sentence.2 A DMISSIBILITY OF E VIDENCE

In his sole issue, Appellant contends the tria l court erred in admitting impermissible

hearsay testimony of the investigating officers. He complains that, in response to questions by

the prosecutor, Officer Michael Gray explained what Villanueva told the officer about how the

incident happened, and h e repeated Villanueva’s descriptions of the car and the suspects.

Appellant also complains that Detective Amanda Kennedy testified that Britney Thorn identified

the driver of her vehicle and told her that Appellant was with that individual on the night of the

robbery. The trial court overruled Appellant’s objections and instructed the jury that the evidence

was not admitted to prove the truth of the testimony, but admitted only for the limited purpose of

showing the course of actions of the investigators.

We review a court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion

standard. Martinez v. State , 327 S.W.3d 727, 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We will not reverse

such a ruling so long as it falls within the zone of reasonable disagr eement. Id . Hearsay is a

statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in

evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. T EX

. R. E VID

. 801(d). If the state elicits

testimony to explain how a defe ndant originally became a suspect, then the testimony is not

hearsay because it is not presented for the truth of the matter asserted. Dinkins v. State , 894

S.W.2d 330, 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).

Here, Officer Gray and Detective Kennedy testified as to their actions in the course of the

investigation into the robbery of Villanueva. After learning what happened, hearing the

descriptions of the suspects and their vehicle, and learning the identity of the people using the

vehicle at the time of the robbery , law enforcement suspected that Appellant was involved in the

robbery. Thus, the officers’ testimony explained how Appellant became a suspect and was not

hearsay. See id . The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the complained

- of

testi mony. We overrule Appellant’s sole issue.

D ISPOSIT ION

Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.3 

### S AM 

### G RIFFITH

Justice

Opinion delivered March 13 , 2013.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)4 

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 13 , 2013

NO. 12

- 11

- 00356

- CR

DEMARCUS A NDRE WADE

,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

Appeal from the 420th Judicial District Court

of Nacogdoches County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F118168 )

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment

of the court below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below

for observance.

Sam Griffith , Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen , C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.