Bahena v. Texas (original by judge mcclure iii)
Annotate this CaseAt trial, Appellant Raul Bahena objected that a State’s witness was not the custodian of records for a disc containing recordings of jailhouse calls. On appeal, the court of appeals determined that the witness was the proper custodian of records and upheld the trial court’s admission of the disc. However, the majority noted that Appellant failed to challenge, at trial and on appeal, that the State’s witness was not another qualified witness, and this failure forfeited any appellate review on that issue. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed Appellant’s failure to object on the specific ground that the State’s witness was not another qualified witness foreclosed consideration of review on that prong of Rule of Evidence 803(6)(D). However, the Court agreed with the court of appeals’ conclusion that the State satisfied the hearsay exception through the in-court testimony of the custodian of records. The Court went one step further and held the State’s witness was qualified to testify to authenticate the jail call recordings. Therefore, the Court affirmed the court of appeal’s judgment upholding the trial court’s admission of the evidence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.