Court Opinion

ID: 9666454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:15:51.308406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:28.919448
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON SECOND MOTION FOR REHEARING
The State has filed a second motion for rehearing, or alternatively, a motion for rehearing en banc, Tex.R.App.P. 79(d), (e), and a motion for postsubmission supplementation and correction of the statement of facts. We overrule the motions for rehearing en banc and for postsubmission supplementation.
In its second motion for rehearing, the State raises three points of error: that Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 803(6) applied; that error was not preserved; and- that error was harmless. Our opinion addresses why State’s exhibit number two should not have been admitted as a business record exception to the hearsay rule and why admission could not be harmless error.
Appellant preserved his objection to the admission of State’s exhibit number two by arguing that it constituted hearsay. The whole submission form constituted hearsay because it was not a business record, and the indicia of reliability necessary for its admission was not shown. Sisson, 561 S.W.2d at 199; Coulter, 494 S.W.2d at 883.
We overrule the State’s second motion for rehearing.