Court Opinion

ID: 9748916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:17:37.17764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:40.661834
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion.
I respectfully dissent. Appellant was prosecuted for aggravated assault and indecency with a child. At trial, the state first called Janet Smith, the outcry witness, to testify. Smith testified concerning her encounter with the complainant, C.S., in which C.S. told her about the alleged abuse by appellant. The state’s next witness, Mark Peterson, testified that the statements given to him by Smith and C.S.’s mother were “consistent with” the facts given to him by C.S. Ante, at 260-61. Appellant'objected to this on the basis of *265hearsay, and the trial court overruled his objection.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals overruled appellant’s point of error on this issue. It stated: “Peterson’s answer, Tes,’ did not convey the contents of any statement made by the aunt [Smith] or the mother to Peterson. There simply was no statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.” Head v. State, No. 2-96-489-CR, slip op. at 5 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth, October 8, 1998) (not designated for publication).
This holding by the Court of Appeals is incorrect. Smith first testified to certain events, and Peterson then testified that the events as described to him by C.S. were “consistent with” what Smith and C.S.’s mother had told him. Since Smith herself had already testified as to those same events, Peterson effectively testified to the content of what C.S., her mother and Smith had said to him. While all of these statements were inadmissible hearsay, the most egregious of these is the testimony concerning C.S.’s mother; she was not the outcry witness and did not testify, so Peterson effectively testified as to the inadmissible statements of a non-testifying informant. This is precisely the type of indirect hearsay that we held to be error in Schaffer v. State, 777 S.W.2d 111, 113-114 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); see also Burks v. State, 876 S.W.2d 877, 897-898 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1114, 115 S.Ct. 909, 130 L.Ed.2d 791 (1995); Gochicoa v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 440, 445-446 (5th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1121, 118 S.Ct. 1063, 140 L.Ed.2d 124 (1998). The judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed, and the cause remanded for a harm analysis.
The majority’s assertion that “Peterson’s testimony, when taken in context, does not lead to any inescapable conclusions as to the substance of the out-of-court statements” (ante, at 261-62) does not withstand scrutiny. The majority attempts to distinguish the instant case fi-om Schaffer by characterizing the indirect hearsay in Schaffer as “inescapably” relating the contents of the out-of-court statements (ante, at 262); it contends that, in contrast, the testimony in the instant case requires “deduction” and an “inferential leap” from the jury in order to constitute hearsay. Id. That is the very point of indirect hearsay; because it is indirect, some type of deduction or inference must always be made.
This attempt to distinguish Schaffer and the instant case is all the more puzzling because the testimony in Schaffer required more of an “inferential leap” than does the testimony in the instant case. In Schaffer, the defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance. Schaffer, 777 S.W.2d at 112. He claimed that he had been acting as an informant to an Officer Seals. Id. at 112-113. A narcotics investigator testified that he had spoken with Seals and when asked whether he would ask the state to drop the charges against appellant as a result of his discussion with Seals, he said “no.” Id. at 113. In an opinion by Presiding Judge McCormick, we held that this was hearsay. Id. at 113-114. Certainly, an inference or “leap” had to be made in Schaffer: Seals must have told the witness that the defendant was not an informant. By contrast, in this case, it takes only a small step to figure out that Smith’s previous testimony, as well as C.S.’s subsequent testimony, were essentially the same as what C.S., her mother and Smith had told Peterson.
The majority also focuses on the phrase “sole intent” in Schaffer to suggest that the sole intent in the instant case was not to elicit hearsay testimony. Ante, at 262. Yet, the majority does not explain what other possible reason there could have been for eliciting this testimony. Clearly, it was offered “solely” for purposes of corroborating both Smith’s earlier testimony and C.S.’s subsequent testimony. It was elicited in order to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the other witnesses and a non-witness, and this makes it hearsay. As we stated in Schaffer, “To regard *266the testimony in any other manner is disingenuous .... ” Schaffer, 777 S.W.2d at 114.
Finally, the majority attempts to justify its conclusion by asserting that this was a “close” case and that, as such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Ante, at 262-63. As noted above, this indirect hearsay is even clearer than the indirect hearsay in Schaffer. If it was error to admit the testimony in Schaffer, then surely it was error to admit it in this case.
Forty years ago, Judson F. Falknor, Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and the New York University School of Law, wrote about indirect hearsay,
While the objectionable character of [“indirect” hearsay] evidence seems obvious enough, it will be observed ... how frequently the hearsay objection has been brushed aside in the trial courts, and, also how the appellate courts, not infrequently, have fumbled what seems to be a relatively simple problem of evidence law.
Judson F. Falknor, “Indirect” Hearsay, 31 Tulane Law Review 3, 3 (1956). In my own experience, hearsay is a difficult concept for many persons and indirect hearsay even more so. I see no reason to make the concept even more difficult by reaching a decision which is irreconcilable with Schaffer. Our case law will now give contradicting guidance to lower courts in analyzing this type of hearsay. Such confusion need not be introduced into our jurisprudence. I dissent.1

. The majority dismisses, without explanation, four of appellant’s grounds for review. Ante, at 259. In his petition for discretionary review, appellant presented five grounds for review. The list of granted petitions for discretionary review for April 14, 1999, erroneously indicated that we had granted all grounds in appellant’s petition. A check of the relevant paperwork indicates that we granted only ground two, the indirect hearsay issue.