C.A., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Affirmed and Opinion filed November 20, 1989
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-89-00963-CV
............................
C.A., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.................................................................
On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. JD-22970-W
.................................................................
O P I N I O N
Before Chief Justice Enoch and Justices Baker and Whittington
Opinion by Chief Justice Enoch
        C.A., a juvenile, appeals the trial court's order waiving jurisdiction and transferring this case to a criminal district court. In seven closely related points of error, C.A. argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain hearsay evidence, thereby depriving C.A. of his Constitutional rights to confront witnesses. For the reasons given below, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
        C.A. complains that: (1) the trial court permitted an investigative police officer to testify as to what he was told by the complainant of an aggravated assault that C.A. allegedly committed; (2) the trial court admitted into evidence a social evaluation and investigation report that contained a statement of an alleged accomplice in the assault; and (3) the same investigation report contained statements by three school authorities on C.A.'s alleged disciplinary problems at school. Because the complainant, the alleged accomplice, and the school authorities were not available at the hearing, C.A. argues that such evidence was improperly admissible as hearsay and that its admission violated his right to confront witnesses, in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10, of the Texas Constitution.
        The purpose of a transfer proceeding authorized in section 54.02 of the Texas Family Code is not to determine the guilt or innocence of the juvenile but to establish whether the juvenile's and society's best interests would be served by maintaining juvenile custody of the child or by transferring him to a criminal district court for adult proceedings. In the matter of Honsaker, 539 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see also B.R.D. v. State, 575 S.W.2d 126, 131 (Tex. Civ. App.--Corpus Christi 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Evidence in a transfer proceeding is not to establish the guilt of a child, but only to allow the juvenile court to exercise its discretion in making the transfer. See Honsaker, 539 S.W.2d at 201. Thus, because of the limited nature of a transfer proceeding, namely, the determination of whether a juvenile is able to be tried as an adult, evidence, even if it would otherwise be hearsay, is admissible. See G R Lv. State, 581 S.W.2d 536, 537 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1979, no writ). Because a transfer hearing is dispositional in nature and not adjudicatory, hearsay rules do not apply. In the matter of M.A.B., 641 S.W.2d 621, 623 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1982, no writ). We overrule all seven of C.A.'s points of error.
        The judgment is affirmed.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          CRAIG TRIVELY ENOCH
                                                          CHIEF JUSTICE
 
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 90
 
890963.U05
 
 
File Date[11-20-89]
File Name[890963]