Court Opinion

ID: 9677461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:52:57.123837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:56.142544
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Stevens contends on rehearing that the testimony of Dr. Adams offers no support for the court’s finding that he had violated his probation, because the State did not offer the written reports into evidence. The reports were used by Adams during his testimony. Adams was the supervisor of the laboratory where the tests were made, but did not personally conduct the tests in this case. Stevens argues that Adams’s testimony was based upon the reports and that without the introduction of those reports his testimony was without probative force.
Adams testified in detail about the results of the tests, providing information supporting a conclusion that Stevens had violated a term of his probation. “Inadmissible hearsay admitted without objection shall not be denied probative value merely because it is hearsay.” Tex.R.CRIM.Evid. 802. Adams’s testimony was admitted without objection for all purposes and was properly considered by the fact finder. Stevens’s motion for rehearing is overruled.