Fischer v. State
252 S.W.3d 375 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A law enforcement officer's factual narrative of an investigation, contemporaneously recorded on a patrol-car videotape, is not admissible under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule (Texas Rule of Evidence 803(1)). Such statements are considered a calculated 'speaking offense report' made in an adversarial context, lacking the spontaneity and unreflectiveness required by the exception.
Facts:
- At approximately 1:40 a.m., DPS Trooper Martinez initiated a traffic stop of Fischer for not wearing a seatbelt.
- Upon approaching Fischer's truck, Trooper Martinez smelled alcohol, and Fischer admitted to having consumed 'Three wines.'
- Trooper Martinez walked back to his patrol car and dictated into his microphone that Fischer had 'glassy, bloodshot eyes' and 'slurred speech.'
- Martinez administered a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test to Fischer outside the camera's view.
- After the HGN test, Martinez returned to his patrol car and dictated the specific results, noting several indicators of intoxication.
- Martinez then administered two field sobriety tests, the heel-to-toe and the one-leg stand, in front of his patrol car.
- After each test, Martinez returned to his patrol car to dictate Fischer's specific failures, noting that Fischer 'gave several clues' to intoxication.
- Finally, Trooper Martinez dictated, 'Subject is going to be placed under arrest for DWI,' and then proceeded to arrest Fischer.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Texas charged Fischer with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) in the trial court.
- Fischer filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the audio portion of Trooper Martinez's patrol-car videotape.
- The trial judge denied the motion, ruling the audio narrative was admissible under the 'present sense impression' hearsay exception.
- Following the ruling, Fischer pled nolo contendere and, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trooper's recorded commentary was not a present sense impression.
- The State, as petitioner, filed a petition for discretionary review, which was granted by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the state's highest criminal court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a law enforcement officer's contemporaneously recorded factual narrative of a DWI investigation, dictated onto a patrol-car videotape, qualify as a present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule under Texas Rule of Evidence 803(1)?
Opinions:
Majority - Cochran, J.
No. An officer's calculated narrative made during an adversarial investigation is a 'speaking offense report' and does not qualify as an unreflective, street-corner statement under the present sense impression exception. The rationale for the exception is that the statement is an unthinking, spontaneous reflex to an event, free from the dangers of faulty memory or insincerity. Trooper Martinez's statements were not spontaneous reflexes; they were deliberate narrations made for the purpose of gathering evidence for a future prosecution. He made four separate trips to his car to record his observations and conclusions. This conduct is part of the 'competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime' and is inherently adversarial, which is precisely the reason that police reports are generally excluded from evidence under Rule 803(8)(B). Admitting these statements under Rule 803(1) would improperly use it as a 'back door' to admit evidence that is explicitly inadmissible under the police reports exception.
Dissenting - Hervey, J.
Yes. The admissibility of the statements should be analyzed strictly under the factors of Rule 803(1), not by analogy to the rule excluding police reports. The statements satisfy the key requirements of a present sense impression: contemporaneity and spontaneity. Trooper Martinez made the statements immediately after perceiving the events, leaving little or no time for calculated misstatement or the hearsay dangers of faulty memory or insincerity. The brief time between observation and dictation does not create a setting 'brimming with the potential for exaggeration.' The majority's holding effectively decides that an officer's status alone disqualifies their statement, meaning Rule 803(8)(B) 'trumps' Rule 803(1), even when the statement otherwise meets all the criteria for a present sense impression.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the present sense impression exception in Texas, particularly as it applies to law enforcement. It prevents the exception from being used as a loophole to introduce the substance of a police report, which is generally inadmissible hearsay under Rule 803(8)(B). The ruling emphasizes that the context and purpose of a statement are as crucial as its timing; a statement made as part of a calculated, adversarial investigation lacks the inherent trustworthiness that underpins the exception. This precedent will likely prevent prosecutors from introducing an officer’s on-the-scene recorded commentary as a substitute for or supplement to in-court testimony, reinforcing the importance of sworn testimony and cross-examination.
