Home
 
 

Browsing Topics: "Hearsay Exceptions : Child's Statements" — Cases

The materials below may contain outdated information. Please update your research accordingly.

Download Summary
Topic(s):  Evidence — Child's Statement — Reliability — Leading Questions — Age Level
In re D.D.D.K., No. 07-09-0101-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 9238 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 1, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) — Children's statements regarding sexual abuse were reliable. Their counselor testified that the statements were consistent and disclosed information that children of their ages did not normally know. A nurse medical examiner testified their statements were consistent with her examination. The trial court could determine the credibility of the foster parents with regard to the allegations they coached the children and asked leading questions of them. The trier of fact could also weigh the evidence regarding the children functioning below their age level.
View Case

 Topic(s):  Evidence — Department Case File — Business Records Exception — Public Records Exception — Home Study — Witness Statements — Physician Notes — Arrest Warrant — Harmful Error to Admit
In re E.A.K., 192 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) — Father in termination of parental rights trial objected to introduction of the department's case file, and specifically to documents contained therein, which was admitted through the business records exception. The trial court properly admitted the home study, prepared by a department contractor. The trial court erred in admitting handwritten statements given to the Arlington police by witnesses; a physician assistant's notes concerning her evaluation of the child for sexual abuse, including the child's statements; and, an arrest warrant. None of the documents was admissible under the public records exception either. Admission of the documents probably caused rendition of an erroneous judgment, and the jury's findings probably turned on this evidence.
View Case

 Topic(s):  Evidence — Hearsay — Admissibility Review— Abuse of Discretion Standard
In re P.E.W., 105 S.W.3d 771 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, no pet.) — A trial court's decision in admitting or excluding evidence, including hearsay statements admitted under an exception, is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. The trial court abuses its discretion when the decision fails to comport with controlling principles and rules or when the decision lacks evidentiary support. If the trial court does abuse its discretion, the case will not be reversed unless the error was harmful, which usually obligates the appellant to show that judgment turned on particular evidence.
View Case

 Topic(s):  Evidence — Hearsay — Child's Statement — Admissibility — Reliability — Caseworker's Report
In re E.A.K., 192 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) — Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 104.006 requires that the trial court hold a hearing to determine the reliability of the child's outcry statement before admission. In this case, the contents of the caseworker's report containing the child's outcry statement did not contain sufficient indicia of reliability. The reliability of a child's outcry statement may turn on whether the child was allowed to tell the story or whether the child was asked leading questions. The caseworker's report about the child abuse did not give any explanation of the circumstances in which the interview was given, including who was present. The report did not provide any questions or comments made by the interviewer. And the report did not indicate if a predicate was laid for whether the child understood the difference between a truth and a lie.
View Case

 Topic(s):  Evidence — Hearsay — Child's Statement — Age of Child
In re K.L., 91 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, no pet.) — Tex. Fam. Code &167; 104.006 is conditioned on the age of the child when the statements were made, not when the trial court later determines the admissibility of the statements at trial. If the child is over twelve at the time of the trial, but was twelve or younger when the statements were made, the statements still fall within &167; 104.006.