officer and chemist observed cocaine residue visible to the naked eye
How later courts described this case
- officer and chemist observed cocaine residue visible to the naked eye
- "If the controlled substance can be seen and measured, we conclude that the amount is sufficient to establish that the defendant knew it was a controlled substance," citing Shults v. State, supra, note 1, ante
- PCP residue found in glass vial in defendant’s jacket pocket
- defendant possessed cocaine on his person
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION ON SECOND MOTION FOR REHEARING
The State has filed a second motion for rehearing, or alternatively, a motion for rehearing en banc, Tex.R.App.P. 79(d), (e), and a motion for postsubmission supplementation and correction of the statement of facts. We overrule the motions for rehearing en banc and for postsubmission supplementation.
In its second motion for rehearing, the State raises three points of error: that Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 803(6) applied; that error was not preserved; and- that error was harmless. Our opinion addresses why State’s exhibit number two should not have been admitted as a business record exception to the hearsay rule and why admission could not be harmless error.
Appellant preserved his objection to the admission of State’s exhibit number two by arguing that it constituted hearsay. The whole submission form constituted hearsay because it was not a business record, and the indicia of reliability necessary for its admission was not shown. Sisson, 561 S.W.2d at 199; Coulter, 494 S.W.2d at 883.
We overrule the State’s second motion for rehearing.