# Smith v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 6, 2009 · 297 S.W.3d 260

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729846

## Case

- **Full name:** Demetrius Dewayne SMITH, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** May 6, 2009
- **Citations:** 297 S.W.3d 260; 2009 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 527; 2009 WL 1212500
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Keasler
- **Judges:** Meyers, Keasler, Keller, Hervey, Holcomb, Cochran, Price, Womack, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 140 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/9729846

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that jurors are presumed to attach common [24] [25] [26] [27]We review motions to suppress understanding of meaning of terms that are not pursuant to a bifurcated standard under which the defined in jury charge
- explaining a defendant may suffer no harm by any lack of notice in the indictment even though the indictment in a defendant’s case isn’t sufficiently sufficient when the allegations involve a course of conduct, a single offense, and the motion to quash if overruled, if the def…
- stating that the indictment must be specific enough to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusations against him so that he may prepare a defense.
- holding that appellant did not suffer harm where the record clearly showed that appellant had actual notice of the allegations charged by the State

## Opinion text

KEASLER, J.,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion with the exception of its resolution of points of error *279 eighteen and nineteen. 1 I would hold that State’s Exhibits 73 and 74, the TDCJ-ID penitentiary packets containing disciplinary reports and hearing records concerning Demetrius Dewayne Smith’s past prison conduct, are business records that do not constitute testimonial hearsay under Crawford v. Washington. 2 , The analysis set out in Ohio v. Roberts 3 controls, and because the records fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception, Smith’s rights under the Confrontation Clause were not violated.
. Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871, 887-88 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (Keasler, J., dissenting.).
. 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).
. 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729846. Public record. Not legal advice.