Court Opinion

ID: 9811467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:21:35.104501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:51.394002
License: Public Domain

GRANT, Judge,
concurring.
First, Bart Lindsey Vaughn should have been allowed to testify about the murder-for-hire offer. This evidence was not offered to show the truth of the matter stated, but rather to show a verbal act causing Vaughn to flee the state. As such, it would not be hearsay. See Tex.R. Evid. 801(d). The truth of the matter stated goes to the content of the statement to which the witness referred, not to whether the statement was made. Whether the statement had been made was a question of credibility for the jury. Nevertheless, this matter is not raised on appeal and therefore cannot be addressed by this court.
Because this matter was excluded on the basis of hearsay, Vaughn offered the record of the previous bail bond hearing in the same criminal proceeding. Tex.R. Evid. 801(e)(1) allows the introduction of testimony at a previous trial or hearing, subject to certain requirements. This rule states that such statements are not hearsay. However, this offer does not fall within any of the exceptions under that rule. The exception which might have been applicable would be Tex.R. Evid. 801(e)(1)(B) to show that Vaughn’s statement as to why he fled the state was not a recent fabrication. However, because he was not permitted to testify about the reason for the threat he contended was made against him, there was no evidence offered to rebut this matter. Thus, this exception could not apply.
For these reasons, I concur with the majority.