Rolando Bosquez v. State
446 S.W.3d 581
Tex. App.2014Background
- Bosquez was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of methamphetamine after consolidated proceedings arising from separate January gun and drug cases and a June drug case.
- Police recovered a firearm, bullets, a holster, and 6.34 grams of meth from the red truck registered to Bosquez after a January 21, 2013 stop.
- In a June 18, 2013 stop, officers found 20.48 grams of meth, scales, and drug paraphernalia in Bosquez’s vehicle and charged him in a separate drug case.
- The State consolidated the January gun case, January drug case, and June drug case for trial, and filed motions in limine regarding Bosquez’s statements.
- Bosquez testified at trial and presented theories blaming others for the drugs and gun; the State challenged his credibility in closing arguments.
- Bosquez sought to introduce an in-car video from the June drug case as a prior consistent statement to rebut a fabrication charge, but the trial court denied admission; the jury found him guilty in the January gun and June drug cases and not guilty in the January drug case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of video to rebut fabrication charge | Bosquez argues the Tobar video is a prior consistent statement to rebut fabrication. | State argues the video is hearsay and not a proper prior consistent statement under Rule 801(e)(1)(B). | Video excluded; no abuse of discretion; not a proper prior consistent statement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995) (requirements for prior consistent statements to rebut fabrication)
- Hammons v. State, 239 S.W.3d 798 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (analyze cross-examination and motive to fabricate in determining admissibility)
- Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (principles for evaluating prior statements as non-hearsay; corroboration of timing/motive)
- Linney v. State, 401 S.W.3d 764 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (cross-examination can imply fabrication; totality of record test for implied charge of fabrication)
- Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) (hearsay exclusion and statements offered to prove not for truth of matter)