Wayne Lee Horton v. State, 04-16-00092-CR

Defendant Wayne Lee Horton was indicted for family-violence assault against his wife, charged with striking her in the face and nose; he pleaded not guilty and stipulated to a prior family-violence conviction.
The complainant (his wife) signed a non-prosecution statement and refused to cooperate at trial; the State proceeded over her refusal.
The State’s primary eyewitness was the wife’s 10-year-old daughter, K.W., who testified she saw Horton hit her mother; three school administrators corroborated K.W.’s out-of-court reports that she saw the stepfather hit her mother.
Horton did not testify; he called an officer to rebut an unrelated allegation about K.W.’s medical care.
On cross-examination, K.W. was asked whether her mother told her what happened; defense hearsay objection was overruled. Later, Horton himself elicited K.W.’s admission that she might have repeated what her mother told her.
The jury convicted Horton; he was sentenced to 35 years. Horton appealed alleging "backdoor hearsay" and a Confrontation Clause violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Horton)	Held
Admission of "backdoor hearsay"	Overruled hearsay objection was proper because no out-of-court statement was actually admitted at the time; any error cured later.	K.W.'s testimony indirectly conveyed her mother’s out-of-court statement to the jury (backdoor hearsay).	Court: Horton inadequately briefed; record shows no backdoor hearsay at ruling time; any error harmless because Horton later elicited same content.
Confrontation Clause (Crawford)	No preserved Crawford claim; Horton elicited the testimony and failed to object at trial.	K.W.’s answer that she believed her mother’s statement deprived Horton of opportunity to cross-examine the declarant (wife), a testimonial statement.	Court: Claim not preserved—Horton invited the testimony/failed to object—so nothing for review.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements by witnesses who do not testify trigger Confrontation Clause protections)
Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (briefing standards; failure to cite authority may waive issues)
Hajjar v. State, 176 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (no hearsay where contents of out-of-court statement were not introduced)
Head v. State, 4 S.W.3d 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (review limited to evidence state of record when trial court ruled on admissibility)
Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (error cured when same evidence is later admitted without objection)
Shaw v. State, 122 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (admission of hearsay is harmless when fact is otherwise sufficiently proved)
Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Confrontation Clause claims must be preserved by timely objection at trial)