Stephen Clark Webb v. State
01-14-00174-CR
| Tex. App. | May 1, 2015Background
- Appellant Stephen Clark Webb appealed his conviction for indecency with a child; this filing is a motion for rehearing after the First Court of Appeals affirmed on April 2, 2015.
- At trial, the court admitted statements the complainant made while sleeping (somniloquy) as an "excited utterance" hearsay exception.
- Appellant objected at trial and on appeal, arguing that sleep-talk is unconscious and therefore unreliable hearsay not covered by the excited-utterance exception.
- The appellate court affirmed admission, concluding the codified Texas Rules of Evidence permit admission under the excited-utterance exception despite Mayfield.
- Appellant contends the court misapplied precedent and rules; he argues admissibility should be tested under hearsay principles (Rule 803/exceptions) rather than only relevancy/balancing (Rules 402/403).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether somniloquy (statements made while sleeping) is admissible as an "excited utterance" hearsay exception | Webb: sleep-talk is unconscious, lacks the consciousness/reliability required for excited utterance; inadmissible hearsay | State/Appellate court: Texas Rules of Evidence allow excited utterance admission; Mayfield's requirement of consciousness no longer controls | Appellate court affirmed admission; Webb seeks rehearing arguing this was legal error |
| Proper basis for objection to sleep statements (hearsay vs. relevance/prejudice) | Webb: primary objection should be hearsay—statements are inherently unreliable and thus inadmissible; Rule 403 balancing inappropriate if evidence is inadmissible | Appellate court suggested objections under Rules 402/403 could be appropriate given rules codification | Court treated the statements as admissible under excited-utterance exception; Webb argues that was a misapplication and reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayfield v. State, 25 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930) (requires declarant be conscious for out-of-court declarations to be admissible)
- Commonwealth v. Almeida, 746 N.E.2d 139 (Mass. 2001) (sleep talk is inherently unreliable and not admissible as excited utterance)
- State v. Alan, 670 N.W.2d 814 (Neb. App. 2003) (statements made while asleep are unreliable and not admissible as spontaneous statements)
- Godfrey v. State, 365 S.E.2d 93 (Ga. 1998) (sleep talk insufficiently reliable for admission)
- State v. Posten, 302 N.W.2d 638 (Minn. 1981) (dreams and sleep statements do not reliably mirror waking events and are inadmissible)