in the Interest of C.C., M.C., L.O., and H.P., Children
476 S.W.3d 632
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Parents Haley P. and Nick C. appealed a final order terminating their parental rights to four children after a Department of Family and Protective Services investigation and subsequent trial.
- At trial, the parents introduced the first page of the Department’s investigative report (the intake) to show no signs of physical abuse; the Department sought admission of the entire report under Texas Rule of Evidence 107 (optional completeness).
- The trial court admitted the full 27-page report over the parents’ objections; parents argued on appeal that admission was improper because much of the report was hearsay, prejudicial, and beyond the scope of Rule 107.
- Intervening foster parents called Dr. Shawn Keel as an expert at trial though they had not previously designated her; parents contended that was improper under Texas discovery rules (Tex. R. Civ. P. 195.2/194.2(f)).
- The court of appeals (Chief Justice Quinn) affirmed: it found the hearsay objection was not preserved in part, held Rule 107 justified admission of portions needed to explain the intake, deemed admission of unrelated portions erroneous but harmless (cumulative/overwhelming other evidence), and upheld Dr. Keel’s testimony because no discovery request had triggered expert-designation deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Haley/Nick) | Defendant's Argument (Department/Intervenors) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of entire investigative report under Rule 107 | First page was complete and not misleading; whole report should not be admitted | Optional completeness permits admission of omitted portions necessary to explain the intake | Court: Portions explaining initial physical condition/living conditions admissible; unrelated portions should have been redacted but error was harmless — affirmed termination |
| Hearsay in investigative report | Report contained pervasive hearsay; admission prejudiced parents | Rule 107 is exception to hearsay for completeness; parents failed to preserve specific hearsay objections | Court: General hearsay objection insufficiently specific to preserve error; other similar evidence in record made any error harmless |
| Admission of evidence unrelated to initial intake (parents’ histories, later inspections, placements) | Such material was irrelevant and prejudicial | Much of same information was admitted elsewhere; not outcome-determinative | Court: Admission of unrelated material was error but harmless given cumulative and overwhelming evidence |
| Designation and timely disclosure of expert Dr. Shawn Keel | Intervenors failed to timely designate Keel as a testifying expert under Rule 195.2 — testimony should be excluded | No party requested expert disclosures under Rule 194.2(f); absent a request or court order, no designation obligation arose | Court: No discovery request or scheduling order triggered disclosure duty; trial court did not err in permitting Keel to testify |
Key Cases Cited
- Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (discusses rationale and scope of optional completeness exception)
- Lomax v. State, 16 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. App. — Waco 2000) (optional completeness permits otherwise inadmissible evidence to explain a part offered by opponent)
- Sauceda v. State, 129 S.W.3d 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (omitted portion must be same subject and necessary to make admitted part understood)
- Whipple v. State, 281 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. App. — El Paso 2008) (entire report inadmissible where remainder contained unrelated personal/medical history)
- State v. Cent. Expressway Sign Associates, 302 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. 2009) (harm from improper admission exists when it probably caused rendition of improper judgment)
- Tex. DOT v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. 2000) (successful evidentiary challenge requires showing judgment turns on the specific evidence)
- Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. v. Sevcik, 267 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. 2008) (erroneously admitted evidence often harmless when cumulative or when error likely made no difference)
- Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State, 66 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. 2001) (appellate review considers entire record)
- G.T. Leach Builders LLC v. Sapphire V.P., L.P., 458 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2015) (scheduling orders and default deadlines for expert designation discussed; court here interprets it as not imposing disclosure absent request/order)
- In the Interest of C.D., 962 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 1998) (no duty to disclose witnesses where no discovery request was served)
- Flores v. City of Liberty, 318 S.W.3d 551 (Tex. App. — Beaumont 2010) (blanket hearsay objections insufficient to preserve error)
- State v. Dawmar Partners, Ltd., 267 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. 2008) (admission harmless where evidence cumulative of substantially similar proof)