Everton Roxroy Bailey, Jr. v. State
03-15-00076-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 1, 2015Background
- Appellant Everton Roxroy Bailey, Jr. was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault (family violence) with a deadly weapon (hot water) and sentenced to 37 years. Appeal challenges admission of hearsay.
- Victim Amanda Mitchell sustained severe burns; initial medical personnel reported inconsistent identification and a different account (woman poured hot water), later Mitchell identified appellant as the assailant.
- Officer Stephen Smith testified about statements Mitchell made to him at the police station (she said her husband poured boiling water on her); defense objected as hearsay.
- Trial court allowed the officer to relate Mitchell’s statement as contextual background explaining the officer’s investigative steps (not for truth).
- Appellant argues the officer’s testimony conveyed detailed allegations identifying appellant and describing the assault, constituting hearsay admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bailey) | Held by Appellate Argument (as presented) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer Smith’s testimony repeating Mitchell’s statement was admissible (non-hearsay/contextual) | Testimony was not hearsay; offered to show why officer acted and how investigation began (contextual background) | Statement was inadmissible hearsay because it named appellant and described the assault, offered to prove guilt/deathly-weapon use | Appellant argues trial court erred: the officer’s recounting went beyond "information received" and was offered to prove truth, so it was inadmissible hearsay and should be excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaffer v. State, 777 S.W.2d 111 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989) (police testimony about action on "information received" and limits on relating third-party statements)
- Burks v. State, 876 S.W.2d 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) (testimony recounting witness statements to police held inadmissible hearsay)
- Morin v. State, 960 S.W.2d 132 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1997) (reversal where investigator testified that a third party implicated appellant; details impermissibly proved truth)
- Jones v. State, 843 S.W.2d 487 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (examples of contexts where officer testimony about investigation may be non-hearsay)
- Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) (officer testimony about investigation leads based on documents/names held non-hearsay in context)
- Head v. State, 4 S.W.3d 258 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (statements that only show consistency among reports may be admissible without revealing contents)
- McCreary v. State, 194 S.W.3d 517 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (distinguishing permissible officer background testimony from impermissible content that proves guilt)
- Hill v. State, 817 S.W.2d 816 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1991) (discussion of limits on testimony about "information received" leading to investigation)