stating that because defendant failed to distinguish his rights under the Texas Constitution from those under the federal constitution and combined all four points into one argument, court would address only whether defendant's rights under the United States Constitution were violated
How later courts described this case
- stating that because defendant failed to distinguish his rights under the Texas Constitution from those under the federal constitution and combined all four points into one argument, court would address only whether defendant's rights under the United States Constitution were violated
- holding that three oral motions for continuance during trial preserved nothing for appellate review
- holding statement admissible under against-penal- interest exception where, among other circumstances indicating reliability, the statements incriminating the defendant were made before declarant became a suspect and were “spontaneous” to friends and acquaintances unconnected with crime
- stating the rule that, when conducting a legal sufficiency review of a conviction, a court should evaluate all of the evidence in the record, whether direct or circumstantial, admissible or not
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Declined to follow by Christopher S. Grimes v. State (2005)
however, antedates Dewberry and we decline to apply it.
The opinion
WOMACK, J.,
filed a concurring opinion in which, JOHNSON, J., joined.
I join the judgment of the Court.
I agree that the admission of the hearsay statement of Chris Dewberry to Mark Bilfifano did not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, as the appellant argues in point of error eight. I base my conclusion on the statement’s particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. I do not agree that the reliability of this statement can be analogized to the reliability factors in White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 (1992), see ante at 753, or that the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest is firmly rooted, see ante at 753.
I also believe that, if the statement were inadmissible, the error in its admission would be harmless. The only fact in this declarant’s statement to Bilfafano that was not in his other statements, which were admitted without a constitutional objection, was that “they had to tie him up.”