This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D was arrested in a stolen van that contained approximately 1,700 grams of bagged and loose peyote buttons. D testified at trial. He admitted to being inside the stolen van and to knowing that the van contained the controlled substance. D claimed he was acting as a police informer. He named 'Jimmy Seals' as the Abilene police officer with whom he had worked for two years previous to his arrest. D testified that during those two years, he had provided authorities with information leading to the arrests and convictions of several drug dealers. Officer Segovia phoned Officer Seals. Segovia took the stand and answered the following question: Without telling us what he told you, Officer Segovia, would you, at this time, ask the State to drop charges against D? The replay was no. Neither party subpoenaed Officer Seals for trial. D asserted that P had elicited hearsay testimony before the jury when it received a negative answer from Officer Segovia. The trial court overruled D's hearsay objection. D was convicted and appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding: 'While this form of question and answer does not produce hearsay in the classic or textbook sense, it is nevertheless designed to circumvent the hearsay rule and present the jury with information from unsworn, out-of-court sources. It should be called 'backdoor' hearsay and should be subject to the same rules and limitations as the more common form. ' P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.