Robert William Richardson v. the State of Texas, 11-19-00307-CR

Robert William Richardson (appellant) was charged in two consolidated cases: continuous sexual abuse of a child and sexual assault of a child; a jury convicted him and the trial court sentenced him to 40 and 20 years, concurrent.
The complainant (Jane Doe #3) is Richardson’s step‑granddaughter; she outcried multiple incidents of abuse beginning when she was about 8–9 and reported abuse at age 16.
The State introduced (1) two extrajudicial statements Richardson made to a deputy (one during a recorded interview; one while being transported after arraignment) and (2) a child counselor’s clinical notes of an interview with the victim.
Richardson objected to his statements under Tex. R. Evid. 803(24) (statement against interest) and Rule 403 (unfair prejudice); he objected to the counselor’s notes at trial on best‑evidence and “bolstering” grounds but did not specifically object on hearsay.
The trial court admitted the challenged statements and the counselor’s notes; Richardson appealed, arguing improper admission of his statements and that the counselor’s notes were hearsay.
The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed: Richardson’s statements were party admissions (not hearsay) and admissible under Rule 403 balancing; the hearsay complaint about the counselor’s notes was not preserved, and alternatively the notes qualified under the business‑records exception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Richardson)	Held
Whether Richardson’s two out‑of‑court statements were admissible	Statements are opposing‑party admissions under Tex. R. Evid. 801(e)(2)(A) and therefore not hearsay; they were probative	Statements are not admissible: do not qualify as statements‑against‑interest under Rule 803(24) and are unduly prejudicial under Rule 403	Admitted. Court held they are party admissions (not hearsay) and Rule 403 balancing did not show unfair prejudice; one statement would be harmless even if erroneous
Whether child‑counselor notes were inadmissible hearsay	Notes are business records admissible under Rule 803(6) with a Rule 902(10) affidavit	Notes are hearsay; objection not preserved at trial (only best‑evidence/bolstering)	Complaint not preserved; alternatively, notes admissible under the business‑records exception

Trevino v. State, 991 S.W.2d 849 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (party admissions are not hearsay)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (Rule 403 balancing and deference to trial court)
Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (definition of unfair prejudice under Rule 403)
Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (sexual‑offense cases often hinge on competing versions of events)
Hayes v. State, 85 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (presumption that relevant evidence is more probative than prejudicial)
Cohn v. State, 849 S.W.2d 817 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (definition/concerns about "bolstering")
Rivas v. State, 275 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (expressing doubt about preservation via "bolstering" objection)
Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (harmless‑error standard for nonconstitutional errors)
Davison v. State, 405 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (application of Rule 44.2(b) for nonconstitutional error)