Hesiquio Cantu v. State, 01-15-00359-CR

Background

Appellant Hesiquio Cantu was convicted by a jury of assault and sentenced to six years; appeal challenges a pretrial evidentiary ruling about hospital records.
Defense sought to admit a single page of the complainant’s Hamilton General Hospital record documenting respiratory assessment; requested redaction of portions quoting the complainant (statements alleging prior and current assaults).
The State proffered the hospital records under the business‑records affidavit and argued hearsay exceptions (Rules 803(4) and 803(6)) and the Rule of Optional Completeness (Rule 107) justified admitting the entire page.
Trial court denied redaction and ruled the document must be admitted in full if any part was offered (“all or none”), allowing the complainant’s out‑of‑court accusations to be before the jury.
Appellant contends those quoted statements are inadmissible hearsay, not covered by the medical‑treatment or business‑records exceptions, and also improperly reference an extraneous offense barred by Rule 404(b).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Cantu)	Held
Whether out‑of‑court statements by the complainant in hospital records are admissible under the business‑records exception (Rule 803(6))	Hospital forms are business records; properly authenticated affidavit satisfies foundation, so the page (including the complainant’s quotations) is admissible.	Statements to hospital personnel are hearsay from an outside declarant with no business duty to report and thus not admissible for truth under 803(6).	Trial court erred to the extent it treated all recorded statements as automatically admissible without showing declarant’s duty/knowledge.
Whether statements describing cause or fault qualify under the medical‑diagnosis/treatment exception (Rule 803(4))	Patient’s description of how injuries occurred is pertinent to diagnosis/treatment and admissible.	Statements assigning fault or describing prior abuse were not necessary for diagnosis/treatment, and the State failed to prove motive/trustworthiness predicates for 803(4).	Court concluded the State bore the burden to show statements were reasonably pertinent to treatment; assigning fault generally does not qualify and the record did not establish the requisite predicates.
Whether the Rule of Optional Completeness (Rule 107) permits admitting the entire record when a portion is used	Because defense used parts of the record in cross‑examination, the State is entitled to admit the whole document to avoid misleading impression.	Rule 107 permits only those omitted parts on the same subject necessary to make the offered portion fully understood; extra allegations on different subjects (prior assault) are not covered.	Appellate authority rejects an automatic “all or none” rule; Rule 107 requires same‑subject necessity, which was not shown for the assault statements.
Whether the quoted statements constitute inadmissible extraneous‑offense evidence under Rule 404(b)	(Implicit) If admissible under hearsay exceptions/completeness, 404(b) concern is obviated.	References to prior bad acts (alleged earlier assault) are classic 404(b) evidence and inadmissible absent a non‑propensity purpose and proper notice/proof.	The State did not justify relevance apart from propensity or address 404(b); admission of such material was improper without satisfying 404(b) safeguards.

Key Cases Cited

Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (business‑records exception does not make admissible statements from outsiders who have no business duty to report)
Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (proponent bears burden to establish predicates for hearsay exceptions)
Sauceda v. State, 129 S.W.3d 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Rule of Optional Completeness requires omitted material be on same subject and necessary to make offered portion fully understood; rejects automatic all‑or‑none rule)
Roman v. State, 503 S.W.2d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (scope of completeness doctrine is limited to same‑subject explanatory material)
Skillern & Sons, Inc. v. Rosen, 359 S.W.2d 298 (Tex. 1962) (hospital records admissible for facts within staff’s personal knowledge but not for patient’s out‑of‑hospital assertions without foundation)
Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (hearsay inadmissible absent recognized exception)
Roberts v. Hollocher, 664 F.2d 200 (8th Cir. 1981) (physician’s written conclusion attributing injuries to excessive force inadmissible if based solely on patient statements and physician does not testify to the basis)