Ross Layton Ford, Appellant v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals, first holding that appellant preserved his challenge to the State's evidence because his hearsay, Sixth Amendment confrontation, and no-sponsoring-witness objections clearly apprised the trial judge, in context, that he objected to resolving the motion to suppress on an unsworn, unsponsored offense report. Applying the plain-language method to article 28.01, section 1(6) and Rule 104(a) of the Texas Rules of Evidence, the Court held that a trial judge conducting a pretrial suppression hearing may rely on any relevant, reliable, and credible information, including unsworn hearsay, because the statute's permissive 'may' makes its listed methods nonexclusive. Because Deputy Halcomb's offense report bore sufficient indicia of reliability and appellant never contested its accuracy, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in resting its suppression ruling on it, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed. Justice Meyers dissented, agreeing the unsworn report was usable but insisting the Court should have remanded for a sufficiency review of whether the report established probable cause; Justice Price, joined by Justice Johnson, concurred in the result while questioning the wisdom of a regime that frees suppression hearings from the rules of evidence.