Cardenas v. State (1990)
In Cardenas v. State, 787 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. App.-Houston 1st Dist. 1990, pet. ref'd.), police were able to narrate hearsay from a non-testifying witness that the defendant committed the crime. See id.
In addition, the only eye-witness who did testify that the defendant committed the crime was shown to be severely lacking in credibility. See Cardenas, 787 S.W.2d at 162-63.
Because of the weakness of the State's identification evidence, the admission of inadmissible hearsay identification from a missing witness was held to affect the substantial rights of the defendant. See id. at 163.
The Court held that when two witnesses, testifying one immediately after the other, introduced the same hearsay statement into evidence, the defendant's failure to object to the second witness's testimony did not waive his timely hearsay objection to the first witness's testimony. Id.
The court stated:
"In some circumstances, a defendant is not required to constantly repeat an objection. One such circumstance is when the objection would be futile because the court has just overruled a valid objection to the same testimony." Id. .