Cases Dealing With Extrajudicial Evidence In Texas
In Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 832, 133 L. Ed. 2d 59, 116 S. Ct. 106 (1995), the victim's appointment book and patient application form, recording an appointment the defendant had with the victim about the same time of the murder, were admitted over a hearsay objection. Dinkins, 894 S.W.2d at 347.
The officer testified that the defendant became a suspect based upon the information in the appointment book and patient application form. Id.
The court found the extrajudicial writing was not hearsay because it was offered to explain how the defendant became a suspect, rather than for the truth of the matter stated. Id.
A similar issue was addressed in Jones v. State, 843 S.W.2d 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1035, 123 L. Ed. 2d 479, 113 S. Ct. 1858 (1993).
The officer testified that out-of-court statements implicated the defendant and were the basis for the defendant becoming a suspect and ultimately led to his arrest. Jones, 843 S.W.2d at 499.
The court held the extrajudicial statements were not inadmissible hearsay because they were admitted not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but to explain how the defendant came to be a suspect. Id.
See also Drake v. State, 860 S.W.2d 182, 184 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd) (complainant's testimony of a statement of a third party was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but to show when he first learned defendant's name and was not inadmissible hearsay);
Cormier v. State, 955 S.W.2d 161, 162 (Tex. App.-Austin 1997, no pet.) (officer's testimony that defendant became suspect based on information from other law enforcement agencies that he was trafficking large amounts of cocaine held not inadmissible hearsay and extrajudicial statements not offered to prove defendant was drug dealer but to explain why drug task force investigated him).