Osteen v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Osteen v. State

61 S.W.3d 90, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 6722, 2001 WL 1176372

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 3, 2001

Docket10-00-014-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 61 S.W.3d 90 (Osteen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Osteen v. State, 61 S.W.3d 90, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 6722, 2001 WL 1176372 (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

REX D. DAVIS, Chief Justice.

A jury convicted Danny Joe Osteen and sentenced him to thirty-eight years’ imprisonment for aggravated sexual assault of a child, ten years’ imprisonment for indecency with a child, and five years’ imprisonment for attempted indecency with a child. He claims in a single point that the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by the victim.

The victim, J.O., testified that Osteen had sexual intercourse with her regularly from the time that she was six years old. Osteen sought to introduce evidence that J.O. previously made statements inconsistent with her testimony at trial. Osteen called T.L., who testified outside the presence of the jury that J.O. had confided in her that she was still a “virgin.” Osteen argues that T.L.’s testimony should be allowed because it constitutes a prior inconsistent statement by J.O. under Texas *91 Rule of Evidence 613(a). The court sustained the State’s hearsay objection and excluded T.L.’s testimony.

Rule 613(a) states that before impeaching a witness with a prior inconsistent statement, the witness must be “told the contents of such statement and the time and place and the person to whom it was made, and must be afforded an opportunity to explain or deny such statement.” Tex.R. Evtd. 613(a). The proper predicate must be laid before impeaching a witness with a prior inconsistent statement. See L.M.W. v. State, 891 S.W.2d 754, 759 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1994, no pet.). Osteen did not tell J.O. the contents of the allegedly inconsistent statement or afford her an opportunity to explain or deny the statements. Because Osteen failed to lay the proper predicate for the admission of a prior inconsistent statement, the trial court properly excluded T.L.’s testimony. Point one is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

REX D. DAVIS, Chief Justice.

A jury convicted Danny Joe Osteen and sentenced him to thirty-eight years’ imprisonment for aggravated sexual assault of a child, ten years’ imprisonment for indecency with a child, and five years’ imprisonment for attempted indecency with a child. He claims in a single point that the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by the victim.

The victim, J.O., testified that Osteen had sexual intercourse with her regularly from the time that she was six years old. Osteen sought to introduce evidence that J.O. previously made statements inconsistent with her testimony at trial. Osteen called T.L., who testified outside the presence of the jury that J.O. had confided in her that she was still a “virgin.” Osteen argues that T.L.’s testimony should be allowed because it constitutes a prior inconsistent statement by J.O. under Texas *91 Rule of Evidence 613(a). The court sustained the State’s hearsay objection and excluded T.L.’s testimony.

Rule 613(a) states that before impeaching a witness with a prior inconsistent statement, the witness must be “told the contents of such statement and the time and place and the person to whom it was made, and must be afforded an opportunity to explain or deny such statement.” Tex.R. Evtd. 613(a). The proper predicate must be laid before impeaching a witness with a prior inconsistent statement. See L.M.W. v. State, 891 S.W.2d 754, 759 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1994, no pet.). Osteen did not tell J.O. the contents of the allegedly inconsistent statement or afford her an opportunity to explain or deny the statements. Because Osteen failed to lay the proper predicate for the admission of a prior inconsistent statement, the trial court properly excluded T.L.’s testimony. Point one is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 S.W.3d 90, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 6722, 2001 WL 1176372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osteen-v-state-texapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack