Court Opinion

ID: 9767881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:32:01.812245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:34.205141
License: Public Domain

ODOM, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the opinion of the majority, but wish to make a few comments regarding possible misinterpretations of our holding which should be avoided.
At first glance it may appear to some that today’s holding regarding the admissibility of past recollections will permit the introduction of any and all memoranda which (1) are made at or near the time of the event in question and (2) are guaranteed to be correct by the witness. Such an interpretation could invite a deluge of documents such as all police reports, statements of witnesses, and matters possessing no additional “indicia of reliability” beyond the traditional two part test above stated. Regardless of admissibility in civil suits, the availability of the past recollection exception to the Hearsay Rule in criminal cases is not to be determined solely upon a mechanistic application of the traditional two part test.
Regarding Article 3737e, V.A.C.S., The Business Records Act, in Coulter v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 494 S.W.2d 876, at 882, 883, this Court stated:
“There is no doubt that the Business Records Exception to the Hearsay Rule is applicable in criminal cases. .
* * * * * *
“However, in some circumstances, evidence within the ambit of a recognized exception to the Hearsay Rule is not admissible if it does not have the indicia of reliability sufficient to insure the integrity of the fact finding process commensurate with the constitutional right of confrontation and cross-examination.
* * * * * *
“Even if it [the objected to exhibit] was shown to he a business record entry, the indicia of reliability necessary for its admission is not shown” (Emphasis added).
Thus, even though the formal statutory requirements were satisfied, and admissibility within the terms of the statute was shown, this Court held the evidence was not admissible in the criminal proceeding. Coulter therefore clearly pointed out that, al*49though the Business Records Act exception to the hearsay rule is applicable in criminal cases, its application in such cases is conditioned upon the additional, non-statutory requirement that “indicia of reliability” beyond those of the statute be shown.
The same rationale dictates that the Past Recollection Recorded exception to the hearsay rule applicable in civil suits be available in criminal prosecutions not in a mechanistic manner but with the same tempering condition stated in Coulter,1 supra. In this regard, it should be noted that the reasoning expressed in Coulter in its quotation at length from United States v. Ware, 247 F.2d 698 (7th Cir. 1957), upon proper facts would apply with equal force to the past recollection exception:
“[E]ven if memoranda such as the ones in question are regularly prepared by law enforcement officers, they lack the necessary earmarks of reliability and trustworthiness.”
Although Coulter v. State, supra, first expressed the standard for the “indicia of reliability” needed beyond that required by the statutory elements as “the indicia of reliability sufficient to insure the integrity of the fact finding process commensurate with the constitutional right of confrontation and cross-examination,’’ such constitutional considerations are not really at the heart of the matter there decided. As stated both in Coulter and in Ware, supra, therein quoted, the fact that the entrants or makers of the memoranda are available for cross-examination and testify does not render tendered exhibits lacking the extra-statutory indicia of trustworthiness admissible. Nor does it even render them harmless when merely cumulative of other evidence, as was stated in United States v. Brown, 451 F.2d 1231 (5th Cir. 1971) quoted with approval in Coulter, supra. Although the right of confrontation is a rela-vant consideration in exceptions to the hearsay rule in criminal cases (as I will discuss below), it is clearly a different consideration than that of the additional indicia of reliability required by authority of Coulter, since absence of the latter will require exclusion of the evidence even where the witness is present and testifying.
As far as the instant case is concerned, the majority opinion has demonstrated, without expressly applying it, compliance with the requirement of “indicia of reliability” beyond the mere algorithmic application of the traditional two part test for past recollections recorded. I refrain from attempting to express general rules for determining “indicia of reliability” because, as stated in Coulter, supra, 494 S.W.2d at 884:
“More precise guide lines and rules cannot be laid down because the trustworthiness and reliability of records [or past recollections] in relation to the complexities of the fact situations in future cases cannot be anticipated.”
Turning now to the issue of the right to confrontation and its bearing upon the use of past recollections recorded, I wish to say only that in the instant case there was no denial of that right. Full cross-examination was accorded respecting the question of whether the witness with the lapse of memory heard appellant make the threat. The lapse of memory went to the single detail, albeit an important one, and I am of the opinion that the cross-examination available was sufficient. The constitutional issue which would be presented if the witness at time of trial had total amnesia, however, would be a different one. The facts of this case, however, do not require further discussion. California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489, did not reach the issue :
“Whether Porter’s apparent lapse of memory so affected Green’s right to cross-examine as to make a critical difference in the application of the Con*50frontation Clause in this case is an issue which is not ripe for decision at this juncture.”
Neither is the impact of an amnesiac witness upon a defendant’s right to confrontation an issue for this Court to reach in this case.
With these caveats, I concur in the opinion of the majority,
MORRISON, J., joins in this opinion.

. I note that Coulter v. State, supra, explicitly reserved decision on the availability of the Past Recollection Recorded exception in criminal cases in footnote 3 of that opinion.