In Davidson v. State, 25 S.W.3d 183 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), the defendant joined a traveling carnival and fled to Canada while he was being investigated in Texas for sexually abusing his two minor daughters. Davidson, 25 S.W.3d at 184. When Davidson attempted to re-enter the United States at a border crossing in Montana, a U.S. Customs officer performed a routine check and found that an arrest warrant for Davidson was pending in Tarrant County, Texas. Id. The Customs officer detained Davidson, warned him appropriately and interrogated him. Id. Davidson voluntarily made numerous statements implicating himself in the sexual abuse of his daughters. Id. The customs officer did not make a recording of the oral statement as required by article 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, but in accordance with Montana and federal law, he wrote a report relating the contents of the statement. Id. This report was admitted into evidence at Davidson's trial, and he was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child. Id. The convictions were upheld by the Fort Worth Court of Appeals, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals. Id. The court of criminal appeals held that the rule set forth in article 38.22 is procedural in nature, and must be strictly followed in a Texas judicial proceeding. Davidson, 25 S.W.3d at 185-86. Article 38.22, section 3(a) of the code of criminal procedure provides: Sec. 3. (a) No oral or sign language statement of an accused made as a result of custodial interrogation shall be admissible against the accused in a criminal proceeding unless: (1) an electronic recording, which may include motion picture, video tape, or other visual recording, is made of the statement; (2) prior to the statement but during the recording the accused is given the warning in Subsection (a) of Section 2 above and the accused knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waives any rights set out in the warning; (3) the recording device was capable of making an accurate recording, the operator was competent, and the recording is accurate and has not been altered; (4) all voices on the recording are identified; and (5) not later than the 20th day before the date of the proceeding, the attorney representing the defendant is provided with a true, complete, and accurate copy of all recordings of the defendant made under this article. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.22, 3(a) (Vernon Supp. 2000). Because the requirements of article 38.22 were not followed, the statement was inadmissible in a Texas court, even though it was obtained by a federal agent in Montana in accordance with both Montana and federal law: Considerations of efficiency and convenience require that questions relating to the admissibility of evidence, whether oral or otherwise, should usually be determined by the local law of the forum; the trial judge must make most evidentiary decisions with dispatch if the trial is to proceed with reasonable celerity, and should therefore generally apply the local evidentiary law of his own state. Davidson, 25 S.W.3d at 185-86 (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS: EVIDENCE 138 cmt. a (1988)). The court of criminal appeals explicitly held that article 38.23(a) is substantive in nature, not procedural. Id. n.4. The court stated: While both articles 38.22 and 38.23 govern when certain evidence shall and shall not be admitted at trial, they do so in very different terms. Article 38.23 mandates exclusion of evidence when it has been obtained in contravention of legal or constitutional rights. As such, it is properly identified as substantive in nature, as it is an attempt to provide a remedy for a violation of those rights . In contrast, article 38.22 merely prescribes the various requirements that must be satisfied before a statement made by an accused as a result of custodial interrogation will be admitted against him/her at trial. That such requirements are not met does not mean that the statement was necessarily obtained as a result of any legal or constitutional violation, and article 38.22 mandates exclusion of such statements by its own terms and without reference to article 38.23. As such, it more closely resembles our various rules of evidence which determine the admissibility of contents of writings, recordings, and photographs. See TEX. R. EVID. 1001-1009. Thus article 38.22 is more appropriately characterized as a procedural evidentiary rule. Id.