Court Opinion

ID: 9675767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:05:22.831138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:38.873810
License: Public Domain

GRANT, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the results reached by the majority, but I disagree with the following portion of the majority opinion:
A chemist’s testimony concerning test results obtained by his associate is not rendered inadmissible as hearsay merely because he did not personally test the substances. Under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, Tex. R.CRIM.Evid. 803(6), and the former Business Records Act, an expert may testify about test results obtained by another chemist. Brown v. State, 807 S.W.2d *385615 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.); see Hodge v. State, 631 S.W.2d 754, 757 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1982).
(Emphasis added.)
This statement presents a confused entanglement of case law and the rules of evidence. It blends three distinct principles of law that should be kept separated:
(1) The case law in Texas generally permits a supervisor to testify about the results of work done under his or her supervision. Brooks v. State, 642 S.W.2d 791 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1982); Kent v. State, 374 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.Crim.App.1963).
(2) The Rules of Criminal Evidence allow a memorandum, report, statement, or data compilation to be admitted into evidence as a hearsay exception if the proper predicate is laid under Rule 803(6) (records of regularly conducted activity), or 803(8) (public records and reports). Once this report or record comes into evidence, it may be read by a witness or by the attorney, but these rules do not authorize more than the content of these documents and the laying of the predicate for their introduction.
(3) Rule 702 and Rule 703 of the Rules of Criminal Evidence authorize testimony by experts.
The Brown case cited in the majority opinion involves a toxicologist testifying concerning results obtained by his subordinate. In the Hodge case cited in the majority opinion, the court held that Hodge had not properly preserved his point of error.
Inasmuch as I agree that the results of the test were admissible, I concur with the result reached by the majority.