reversing the judgment of conviction where the trial court improperly admitted an evidence envelope containing hearsay
How later courts described this case
- reversing the judgment of conviction where the trial court improperly admitted an evidence envelope containing hearsay
- evidence envelope which summarized the state's case against defendant was inadmissible under Palmer doctrine
- Opinion on State’s Motion for Rehearing
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION
ODOM, Judge.
This appeal is from a conviction for sale of marihuana. A jury assessed punishment at five years.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence over objection an evidence envelope on which appeared the following (handwritten portions emphasized):
“CITY OF TYLER POLICE DEPT.
REPORTING OFFICE: Vice
EXHIBIT NO.: 1
CASE NUMBER: C-59
NAME: Walter Wavne Battee
ALIAS:
ADDRESS: 215 West Harpole. Tvler. Texas
EVIDENCE: Four (4) plastic bags containing green plant material
HOW OBTAINED:
PURCHASED BY: O. Salazar
SEIZED BY:
COLLECTED BY:
WHERE OBTAINED: 215 West Harnole. Tvler. Texas
DATE: 5-8-73
TIME: 2038
AMOUNT PAID: 844.00
WITNESSES:
PERSON REPORTING CASE: W. Hardv
REMARKS: Sale of marihuana”
*92 Appellant properly objected when the envelope was introduced into evidence. The objection sufficiently apprised the trial court that the written notations constituted inadmissible hearsay. The trial court in overruling the objection committed reversible error under Coulter v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 494 S.W.2d 876 , and the authorities there cited.
The State in its brief by various arguments attempts to evade the holding of Coulter v. State, supra. All such arguments misapprehend the extent of the harm to a defendant that results from admission of such evidence. As the Seventh Circuit has reasoned in United States v. Ware, 247 F.2d 698, 700-701 (7th Cir. 1957):
“The jury thus had before it a neat condensation of the government’s whole case against the defendant. The government’s witnesses in effect accompanied the jury into the jury room. In these circumstances we cannot say that the error did not influence the jury, to the defendant’s detriment, or had but very slight effect.”
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
OPINION