Court Opinion

ID: 9674149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:23:53.589345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.813723
License: Public Domain

ON state’s second motion for rehearing
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
The state, through her district attorney, has filed a forceful second motion for rehearing in which it is contended that, though the statement of Obregon was hearsay, it was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. The fallacy in such a position is that the statement of Obregon and the failure of the appellant to reply to such statement both occurred while the appellant was under arrest, and therefore cannot constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. In Moree v. State, 147 Texas Cr. *199Rep. 564, 183 S.W. 2d 166, the court had before it a comparable situation and said:
“It must be remembered that, in cases of this character where hearsay testimony is sought to be used against an accused and identifying him as the guilty party, the burden is upon the State to show that such testimony falls within an exception which authorizes the introduction of such testimony. Unless, then, the testimony is shown to fall within the exception, its admissibility has not been established.”
Later in the opinion the court, in referring to testimony admitted over the objection that it was hearsay, said:
“The trial court entertained the view, as shown by the qualification to the bill of exception, that the testimony was admissible on the theory that it was a conversation which took place in the immediate presence and hearing of the defendant and was such an accusation as called for a reply on his part. Ordinarily, the rule is that when a statement is made in the presence of an accused which he understands, and it calls for a reply on his part, his silence or acquiescence may be shown as a confession. An exception to the rule is that it has no application when the accused is under arrest, for, under such circumstances, he is under no burden of replying.”
The cases relied upon in this motion all relate to situations where the accused was not under arrest.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, the state’s second motion for rehearing is overruled.