Bahena, Raul

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. PD-0653-20
RAUL BAHENA, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
HARRIS COUNTY
MCCLURE, J., delivered the opinion of a unanimous Court.
OPINION
At trial, Appellant objected that a State’s witness was not the custodian of
records for a disc containing recordings of jailhouse calls. On appeal, the court of
appeals determined that the witness was the proper custodian of records and upheld
the trial court’s admission of the disc. However, the majority noted that Appellant
BAHENA ― 2
failed to challenge—at trial and on appeal—that the State’s witness was not another
qualified witness, and this failure forfeited any appellate review on that issue.
We disagree that the Appellant’s failure to object on the specific ground that
the State’s witness was not another qualified witness foreclosed consideration of
review on that prong of Rule of Evidence 803(6)(D). However, we agree with the
court of appeals’ conclusion that the State satisfied the hearsay exception through
the in-court testimony of the custodian of records. We go one step further and hold
the State’s witness was qualified to testify to authenticate the jail call recordings.
Therefore, we affirm the court of appeal’s judgment upholding the trial court’s
admission of the evidence.
Background
Appellant Raul Bahena was charged with aggravated robbery. The
complainant testified at trial and identified Appellant as the man who robbed her of
her backpack at gunpoint in a park. The State also called Sergeant Larry Franks with
the Harris County Sheriff’s Office to testify about recorded phone calls made from
jail. Sgt. Franks testified that he was the supervisor of the Tactical Intelligence Unit
with the Harris County Sheriff’s Office. As part of his duties, Sgt. Franks and his
staff were charged with “gathering and disseminating phone calls from the inmates
into the jail and out of the jail.”
BAHENA ― 3
Sgt. Franks testified about the manner in which the calls could be accessed by
people in the Tactical Intelligence Unit. Specifically, he stated that the calls are
stored according to each inmate’s assigned number, or System Person Number
(SPN), which the inmate enters into the phone, along with a personal identification
number, before a call can be made.
Sgt. Franks identified Pete Galvan, a deputy whom Sgt. Franks supervised, as
the individual who compiled the jail calls in this case. Sgt. Franks testified it was
Galvan who stored and transferred these calls to the disc. However, Galvan was not
available to testify at trial. Sgt. Franks testified that Galvan was “also a custodian of
records,” and he said it was the normal practice of the sheriff’s office to retain the
calls. Sgt. Franks said that the calls in this case were made from the jail by a caller
using Appellant’s identification numbers and codes, though the name and SPN of a
different inmate were on the disc label.
Following Sgt. Franks’s testimony, Appellant objected that the State had not
timely designated Sgt. Franks on its witness list and that he was not the custodian of
records of the jailhouse calls.
The trial court overruled the objections and allowed the admission of the calls.
The State played recordings of phone calls made on seven separate dates in 2017
and 2018. In them, a caller with a male voice discusses the robbery and the
possibility of paying the victim to recant or not cooperate with the prosecution. In
BAHENA ― 4
some calls, the caller speaks with people about not attending trial and evading
subpoenas. In one call, the caller expresses regret for pointing his gun at one of his
cousins, considering that to be the reason he was caught and put in jail because it
prompted her to “call the law.”
The jury found Appellant guilty of the offense charged in the indictment.
Following a punishment hearing before the trial court, the trial court assessed
Appellant’s punishment at twenty-five years’ confinement.
Direct Appeal
On direct appeal, Appellant asserted, among other grounds, that the trial court
abused its discretion in overruling Appellant’s objection that Sgt. Franks was not the
custodian of records for the jailhouse calls. 1
In its brief to the court of appeals, the State argued that the evidence
established that Sgt. Franks was a custodian of records for the jail calls. The State
also argued, for the first time, that being a custodian of records is not a necessity
under Rule 803(6) and that the evidence also established that Sgt. Franks was
“another qualified witness” as defined by Texas Rule of Evidence 803(6)(D).
1
On direct appeal, Appellant raised three grounds: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction; (2) the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on a lesser-included offense; and
(3) the trial court abused its discretion by (a) overruling Appellant’s objection that Sgt. Franks
should not be allowed to testify because the State had not designated him timely on its witness list
and (b) in overruling Appellant’s objection that Sgt. Franks was not the custodian of records for
the recordings of the jailhouse calls. In his petition for discretionary review, Appellant only
challenges the court of appeals holding in the second subpoint of ground three. Therefore, we will
not address the other grounds.
BAHENA ― 5
The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling that admitted Sgt. Franks’s
testimony and the recordings of the jailhouse calls. Bahena v. State, 604 S.W.3d 527,
538 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020). The majority stated that the required
conditions of Rule 803(6) may be satisfied through the in-court testimony of either
the custodian or another qualified witness. Id. The court of appeals then noted that
Appellant did not object that Sgt. Franks was not “another qualified witness” or was
not qualified to offer testimony under Rule 803(6). Id. The court relied on its own
opinion in Melendez v. State, 194 S.W.3d 641, 644 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d), for authority that, in order to preserve error for a Rule 803(6)
objection, a defendant must argue both that the witness is not a custodian of records
and that the witness is not otherwise qualified. Bahena, 604 S.W.3d at 538.
Therefore, relying on its interpretation of its own precedent, the court of appeals held
that Appellant forfeited his argument by failing to object that Sgt. Franks was not
“another qualified witness” under Rule 803(6). Id.
Justice Hassan wrote a dissenting opinion in which she disagreed with the
majority that Appellant forfeited his right to have the merits of his objection heard.
Id. Justice Hassan stated that the majority “improperly casts aside Appellant’s
hearsay argument because he failed (at trial) to object based on the ‘qualified
witness’ prong of Texas Rule of Evidence 803(6).” Id. at 543. Justice Hassan
continued to review Appellant’s claim on the merits and held that Sgt. Franks was
BAHENA ― 6
not a custodian of records or a qualified witness under Texas Rule of Evidence
803(6) because there was no evidence he had “personal knowledge of the mode of
preparation of the records.” Id. at 543–44.
Appellant filed a petition for discretionary review with this Court, arguing that
the court of appeals erred in deciding that Sgt. Franks was a custodian of records or
another qualified witness for the purpose of admitting the phone call recordings.
Specifically, Appellant argues that, while the court below decided, on the merits,
that Sgt. Franks was a custodian of records, the majority did not actually address the
merits of whether he was another qualified witness; instead, the court barred
Appellant’s complaint for failure to preserve error because he failed to specifically
object that Sgt. Franks was not another qualified witness.
Appellant contends that Melendez did not stand for the proposition that error
regarding “another qualified witness” must be preserved but that Melendez had
failed to show evidence that the witness was not qualified. In other words, the court
in Melendez conducted a merit analysis of the claim. In this case, Appellant argues
that he objected to the State’s admission of these inmate calls as a business records
exception to the hearsay rule—Rule 803(6) of the Texas Rules of Evidence. As such,
the objection shifted the burden of proof to the State to show that the evidence of the
inmate calls was admissible under that exception.
BAHENA ― 7
We agree with Appellant. The court of appeals erred by stating that Appellant
forfeited his right to appellate review by failing to specifically object that Franks
was not “another qualified witness.” We take this opportunity to explicitly disavow
and reject the notion that a defendant must specifically object to both prongs of
803(6)(D) to entitle him to a merits review of his hearsay objection. Nevertheless,
we affirm the decision below, as the record shows that Franks was indeed a custodian
of records or another qualified witness. Our analysis follows.
Analysis
First, the court of appeals’ reliance on Melendez as authority for the
proposition that an Appellant must object under both prongs of 803(6) to preserve
error for review is misplaced. Melendez involved a defendant who argued a business
record was inadmissible hearsay because (1) someone from the business needed to
authenticate it because the entries were made by someone from the business, and (2)
the sheriff’s deputy did not testify he was the custodian of records. Melendez, 194
S.W.3d at 644. Therefore, the issue was not that error had not been preserved by
failing to object to the witness as not “another qualified witness,” but that Melendez
failed to present evidence to show that the witness was not a qualified witness. The
court of appeals held that:
Rule 803(6) does not require that the witness be the person who made
the record or even be employed by the organization that made or
maintained the record, and appellant cites no authority imposing any
such requirement. Therefore, [Melendez]’s second issue fails to
BAHENA ― 8
demonstrate that [Deputy] Monfort was not a qualified witness for
purposes of the business record exception to the hearsay rule.
Id.Therefore, the court of appeals ruled against Melendez, not based on
procedural default, but on the merits.
Second, even if Melendez stood for the proposition that a defendant must
object to both prongs of Rule 803(6) to preserve error, this would be an erroneous
holding. Once Appellant objected on the basis that Sgt. Franks was not the proper
custodian of record, it became the State’s burden as the proponent of the evidence to
establish that the recorded jail calls were admissible. See Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d
571, 578–79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); see also De La Paz v. State, 273 S.W.3d 671,
681 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (holding the State had the burden of establishing the
admissibility of the hearsay). It is not Appellant’s burden to establish the
inadmissibility of the State’s hearsay. Thus, we disavow any proposition that bars
review and faults a defendant for not arguing both prongs of Rule 803(6)(D).
This being the case, while Appellant did not specifically object that Sgt.
Franks was not a “qualified witness,” the substance of Appellant’s objection was
that Sgt. Franks’s testimony was not adequate to admit the jail calls under Rule
803(6). In his PDR, Appellant argues that Sgt. Franks was not the custodian of
records for the recordings and that the record is devoid of any evidence that Sgt.
BAHENA ― 9
Franks was qualified to testify to the authenticity of Appellant’s inmate telephone
calls. Since Appellant argues the merits, we will address his claims.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter
asserted in the statement. TEX. R. EVID. 801(d). Hearsay is inadmissible unless made
admissible by statute or rule. TEX. R. EVID. 802. A record of an act, event, condition,
opinion, or diagnosis, commonly called a “business record,” is admissible hearsay
if: (A) the record was made at or near the time by—or from information transmitted
by—someone with knowledge; (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly
conducted business activity; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that
activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony, affidavit, or unsworn
declaration of the custodian or another qualified witness; and (E) the opponent fails
to demonstrate that the source of information or the method or circumstances of
preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness. TEX. R. EVID. 803(6).
Sgt. Frank’s testimony satisfies rule 803(6)’s requirements. First, his
testimony established that the records were made at or near the time by someone
with personal knowledge. TEX. R. EVID. 803(6)(A). Sgt. Franks testified that the
calls are automatically recorded and stored when they are made. Sgt. Franks could
identify the recorded calls associated with the SPN and retrieve them and could then
place them into a link or a disc to disseminate the call or calls to the requesting entity.
Sgt. Franks testified that, in this case, Deputy P. Galvan—one of his subordinates in
BAHENA ― 10
the Tactical Intelligence Unit—made the disc but that Sgt. Franks was the one who
marked it (explaining that the disc had the wrong name on it because “I put the wrong
sticker on the wrong disc”). Sgt. Franks also identified the actual files on the disc as
being the correct recordings.
Second, Sgt. Franks’s testimony established that this record was kept in the
course of the Harris County Sheriff Office’s regularly conducted business. TEX. R.
EVID. 803(6)(B). Sgt. Franks testified that the Harris County Sheriff’s Office records
“all” calls, except privileged calls, and that the process of recording and storing the
calls is “automatic.” Sgt. Franks described the method that was put into place for
inmates to utilize the system.
Third, Sgt. Franks established that making this type of record is the regular
practice of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office. TEX. R. EVID. 803(6)(C). Specifically,
Sgt. Franks stated that it was “[a]ffirmative” that “it’s the normal business practice
to keep these calls on file for the Harris County Sheriff’s Office.” Sgt. Franks
testified that “part of our duties are [sic] gathering and disseminating phone calls
from the inmates into the jail and out of the jail.” Sgt. Franks described the process
of making the record: the unit receives a request for the record and the unit then
uploads the file onto a link or downloads it onto a disc.
Lastly, while Appellant complained on direct appeal that the jailhouse calls
lacked trustworthiness based on Franks’ testimony that many of the inmates rent
BAHENA ― 11
their identification numbers to other inmates for those inmates to make telephone
calls from the Harris County Jail, the court of appeals noted that Appellant did not
object at trial that the recordings lacked trustworthiness and, therefore, failed to
preserve error. Bahena, 604 S.W.3d at 537. In this proceeding, Appellant argues that
the absence of trustworthiness is further compounded by the incorrect name and SPN
on the disc. However, Appellant’s objection at trial was solely about the propriety
of Sgt. Franks being the one to authenticate the calls under Rule 803(6). Appellant
did not question Sgt. Franks about the possibility of some unknown, uncharged
impersonator using Appellant’s SPN and PIN until after the trial court admitted the
jail calls. See Moore v. State, 935 S.W.2d 124, 130-31 (Tex. Crim. App.
1996)(holding the admission of hearsay must be preserved with a timely and specific
objection to the evidence). Further, the mistake in the name was addressed by Sgt.
Franks. He stated that he incorrectly labeled the disc with another inmate’s name,
but that he subsequently checked the actual files to ensure they were correctly
Appellant’s phone calls. Appellant has made no showing that the source of the
information contained in the records, or the circumstances of its preparation indicate
a lack of trustworthiness. See TEX. R. EVID. 803(6)(C).
We find this testimony was sufficient to establish Sgt. Franks as either a
custodian, another qualified witness, or both so he could sponsor the recordings as
BAHENA ― 12
records of regularly conducted activity. See TEX. R. EVID. 803(6). The trial court did
not abuse its discretion in admitting the recordings.
Conclusion
We disavow any language in Melendez that is interpreted to require a specific
objection to “another qualified witness” in order to preserve appellate review under
Texas Rule of Evidence 803(6). A custodian of records can be a qualified witness.
But a qualified witness need not be a custodian of records. Either a custodian of
records or another qualified witness may lay the predicate for admission of evidence.
Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Delivered: November 24, 2021
PUBLISH