# Russeau v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 29, 2005 · 171 S.W.3d 871

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652332

## Case

- **Full name:** Gregory RUSSEAU, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 29, 2005
- **Citations:** 171 S.W.3d 871; 2005 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 976; 2005 WL 1523774
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Keasler
- **Judges:** Holcomb, Price, Womack, Johnson, Cochran, Keasler, Keller, Meyers, Hervey
- **Cited by:** 552 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652332

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that when subject of expert’s testimony is “hard” scientific knowledge, basis of testimony must be grounded in accepted methods and procedures of science and must meet three criteria: (1) underlying scientific theory must be valid; (2) technique applying theory must be…
- explaining that fingerprint comparison testimony is generally admissible under Rule 702 “because it is reliable and it assists the trier of fact in its task of determining whether” fingerprint is that of particular person
- holding that based on the evidence in the case and the court of criminal appeals’s “own well- established history” of accepting fingerprint evidence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence
- holding that specific incident reports written by corrections officers graphically documenting their detailed observations of the defendant's numerous disciplinary offenses were testimonial and inadmissible
- holding as inadmissible jail incident reports and prison disciplinary reports that documented, in the most detailed and graphic of terms, numerous and repeated disciplinary offenses by the defendant

## Opinion text

KEASLER, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent to the majority’s resolution of points of error 16 and 16A.
The exhibits at issue in these points of error are business records. The Supreme Court specified in Crawford v. Washington that business records are not testimonial hearsay. 1 Many other courts have acknowledged this. 2 As a result, Ohio v. Roberts 3 controls. 4 And because these exhibits fall within a firmly rooted exception *888 to the hearsay rule, they do not violate the Confrontation Clause.
. 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1367 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).
. See, e.g., Rios v. Lansing, 116 Fed.Appx. 983 (10th Cir.2004); United States v. Guitierrez-Gonzales, 2004 U.S.App. LEXIS 21038 *5-6 (5th Cir.2004); United States v. Lee, 374 F.3d 637, 644 (8th Cir.2004); Johnson v. Renico, 314 F.Supp.2d 700, 707 (E.D.Mich.2004); United States v. Saner, 313 F.Supp.2d 896 , 900 n. 1 (S.D.Ind.2004); Perkins v. State, 897 So.2d 457, 464 (Ala.Crim.App.2004); People v. Cervantes, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 , 118 Cal.App.4th 162 , 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 , 782 n. 5 (2004); People v. Schrek, 2004 Colo.App. LEXIS 1712 *34 (Colo.App.2004); State v. Rivera, 268 Conn. 351 , 844 A.2d 191 , 202 n. 13 (2004); People v. Capellan, 6 Misc.3d 809 , 791 N.Y.S.2d 315 (N.Y.Crim.Ct.2004); People v. Cortes, 4 Misc.3d 575 , 781 N.Y.S.2d 401, 403 (N.Y.2004); State v. Blackstock, 165 N.C.App. 50 , 598 S.E.2d 412, 420 (2004); State v. McKinney, 2004 Ohio App. LEXIS 5033 *34 (Ohio App.2004); State v. Mack, 2004 Ore. LEXIS 792 *9 n. 5 (Ore.2004); Commonwealth v. Eichele, - A.3d -, 2004 WL 2002212 , 2004 Pa. D. & C. LEXIS 39 *11 (Pa.Commw.Ct.2004); Barela v. State, 2004 WL 2192604 at *7, 2004 Tex.App. LEXIS 8802 *17 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2004); Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296 , 601 S.E.2d 555, 570 (2004); State v. Manuel, 275 Wis.2d 146 , 685 N.W.2d 525 , 532 n. 9 (App.2004).
. 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980).
. Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1373 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652332. Public record. Not legal advice.