# Thomas v. State

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · March 21, 1991 · 807 S.W.2d 786

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9666454

## Case

- **Full name:** Willie B. THOMAS, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** March 21, 1991
- **Citations:** 807 S.W.2d 786; 1991 WL 18290
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Hughes, Bass, O'Connor
- **Cited by:** 22 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/9666454

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9666454. Public record. Not legal advice.