McClure v. State, 575 S.W.2d 564 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

1978

Chapter

6

Title

A Contemporary Approach

Page

163

Topic

Hearsay

Quick Notes

o    McClure killed his wife after receiving utterances for a witness that also slept with her.  At trial McClure was not allowed to introduce this testimony.

o    A statement which would be inadmissible if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted may, nevertheless, be admitted to show the statements effect on the listener, the reader, or viewing of the assertive conduct.

Book Name

Evidence: A Contemporary Approach.  Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves.  ISBN:  978-0-314-19105-2.

Issue

o         Whether utterance evidence that had an effect on the listener may be admitted as evidence?  Yes.

Procedure

Trial

o         McClure was convicted of murder

Supreme

o         Reversed.  The testimony of the three witnesses was relevant to McClures defensive testimony that he was guilty of ONLY voluntary manslaughter and not murder

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl McClure (Appellant)

Df State (Appellee)

Party Description

o          McClure was convicted of murder.

Appealed

o         He appealed.

o         He said the court was in error because the court erroneously excluded evidence that the deceased (McClures wife) had been unfaithful to him.

Tex. Crim. App

o         Agrees

McClure Argued Voluntary Manslaughter

o         In support of the defensive theory that he was guilty of only this lesser included offense, appellant offered the testimony of [three men].

Each man had sex with the deceased

o         Each of these witnesses testified outside of the presence of the jury that he had had sexual intercourse with the deceased while she was married to appellant.

Witness told him about the two other men

o         Appellant also offered to testify and was allowed to do so only outside the presence of the jury that one witness had told him that the deceased had had sexual relations with [two of these men].

Court Erred (Prove adulterous intercourse)

o         We think the court erred in rejecting the evidence offered by defendant to prove the adulterous intercourse between his wife and the man [the three men], and that recently before the homicide he had been informed of this fact.

Reasonable cause to be frenzied evidence

o         This and any other evidence which tended to show that he had reasonable cause to be excited, troubled, distracted and frenzied, that he had knowledge of facts well calculated to destroy his mental equilibrium, to dethrone his reason, to render it improbable that he could and did act with a cool, sedate and deliberate mind in committing the homicide, was in our opinion admissible.

McClure Required to Show Knowledge

o         To be admissible, needed to show knowledge.

McClure tried to prove he had knowledge

o         To prove that he had knowledge of the deceased having had sexual relations with Crowder and Davis, appellant offered to testify that Cindy Haynes had so informed him.

Court Erred in refusing

o         The court erred in refusing to allow appellant to testify as to what Haynes had told him on the ground that such testimony would have been hearsay.

Rule Not subject to attack as hearsay

o         When it is proved that D made a statement to X, with the purpose of showing the probable state of mind thereby induced in X, such as being put on  notice or having knowledge, or motive, or to show the information which X had as bearing on the reasonableness or good faith of the subsequent conduct of X, or anxiety, the evidence is not subject to attack as hearsay.

Rule Persons state of mind is caused by utterance

o         Whenever an utterance is offered to evidence the State of mind which ensued In another person in consequence of the utterance, it is obvious that no assertive or testimonial use is to be made of it, and the utterance is therefore admissible, so far as the hearsay rule is concerned.

Court Should have allowed testimony

o         The court should have allowed appellant to testify as to what Cindy Haynes had told him, since that testimony would have shown he had knowledge of the deceased's indiscretions with Crowder and Davis.

Court McClure testified he saw deceased on a date with one of the men.

o         If may be inferred that he also had knowledge of her indiscretions with that man.

o         Since McClure would have shown his knowledge of the deceaseds actions with the three men, the court should have allowed those three witnesses to testify.

o         The testimony of the three witnesses was relevant to McClures defensive testimony that he was guilty of ONLY voluntary manslaughter and not murder.

Reversed.

Rules

Rule Not subject to attack as hearsay

o         When it is proved that D made a statement to X, with the purpose of showing the probable state of mind thereby induced in X, such as being put on  notice or having knowledge, or motive, or to show the information which X had as bearing on the reasonableness or good faith of the subsequent conduct of X, or anxiety, the evidence is not subject to attack as hearsay.

Rule Persons state of mind is caused by utterance

o         Whenever an utterance is offered to evidence the State of mind which ensued In another person in consequence of the utterance, it is obvious that no assertive or testimonial use is to be made of it, and the utterance is therefore admissible, so far as the hearsay rule is concerned.

Effect on the listener (or reader or viewer of conduct), Page 163

o    A statement which would be inadmissible if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted may, nevertheless, be admitted to show the statements effect on the listener, the reader, or viewing of the assertive conduct.

Class Notes