NO. 12-11-00356-CR

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DEMARCUS ANDRE WADE, § APPEAL FROM THE 420TH

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 

contends the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

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 Appellant 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

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

In his sole issue, Appellant contends the trial 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 he 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 disagreement. 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. TEX. R. EVID. 801(d). If the state elicits 

testimony to explain how a defendant 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 

testimony. We overrule Appellant’s sole issue.

DISPOSITION

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

SAM GRIFFITH

 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 ANDRE 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.