Court Opinion

ID: 9667379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:44:03.668895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:37.469223
License: Public Domain

TERRIE LIVINGSTON, Justice
concurring.
I write separately only to disagree with the majority opinion’s analysis on the admissibility of the one statement identifying the person answering the cell phone as “Dwayne.” As the majority notes above, Appellant made a hearsay objection when the State began to question Detective Al-britton about who answered the call when Albritton placed a call to a number Ken-nard’s sister had identified as belonging to Appellant.
When Appellant made his hearsay objection, the trial court removed the jury and had the State proceed without its presence to see what the witness would say. Albrit-*372ton said he would testify that whoever answered the phone identified himself as “Dwayne” originally but that when Albrit-ton identified himself and called back, the individual merely hung up. The trial court’s instructions indicated to the State that it would allow the State to ask Albrit-ton what happened when he called back and that the person hung up once Albrit-ton identified himself, but not to go into the person’s statement, “This is Dwayne.”
Despite this instruction, Albritton still disclosed that someone answering the stolen cell phone had said, “This is Dwayne.” Appellant again objected and asked the trial court for an instruction to the jury. The trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard both the State’s question and Albritton’s answer, but it denied Appellant’s request for a mistrial.
Unlike the majority, I do not believe the statement was hearsay, which was Appellant’s objection. The rules of evidence state that hearsay is a statement made for the purpose of the truth of the matter asserted. Tex.R. Evid. 801(d). Here, the State contends and I would agree that the statement, “This is Dwayne,” was not offered by the State to prove that Appellant had stolen any cell phone; rather, it was offered to show how Albritton’s investigation was proceeding regarding the various phone numbers on the victim’s caller identification. It was not offered to show that Appellant had stolen the cell phone; the jury already knew that. See Head v. State, 4 S.W.3d 258, 259 (Tex.Crim.App.1999); Enriquez v. State, 56 S.W.3d 596, 600 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 2001, pet. ref'd). Thus, I would hold that the statement was not hearsay and that the objection should not have been sustained, making the instruction to disregard unnecessary, as well as any mistrial.
While the result would remain the same under my analysis or the majority’s, I respectfully concur based upon the foregoing.