Court Opinion

ID: 9729846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:50:18.095475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:01.644578
License: Public Domain

KEASLER, J.,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion with the exception of its resolution of points of error *279eighteen and nineteen.1 I would hold that State’s Exhibits 73 and 74, the TDCJ-ID penitentiary packets containing disciplinary reports and hearing records concerning Demetrius Dewayne Smith’s past prison conduct, are business records that do not constitute testimonial hearsay under Crawford v. Washington.2, The analysis set out in Ohio v. Roberts 3 controls, and because the records fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception, Smith’s rights under the Confrontation Clause were not violated.

. Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871, 887-88 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (Keasler, J., dissenting.).

. 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).

. 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980).