Rashik Ali Taylor, Appellant v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeals held that Texas Rule of Evidence 803(4) reaches statements made to a licensed professional counselor for mental-health treatment, that the recipient need not be a physician or hold medical qualifications (expressly overruling the Austin Court of Appeals' Moore and Perez to the contrary), and that the self-interested motive to tell the truth does not categorically vanish once diagnosis ends and ongoing treatment begins. Because the record showed neither that knowing the near-stranger appellant's identity was important to the efficacy of the complainant's therapy nor that she understood truthfulness on that point mattered, the State failed its burden and the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the counselor's account of the complainant's disclosures. Under Rule 44.2(b) the non-constitutional error was held harmless — it would have had but slight effect given the complainant's own detailed testimony — and the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the ten-year sentence was affirmed. Justice Womack, joined by Keller, Keasler, and Hervey, concurred in the outcome but argued the Court's presumption that veracity-awareness attaches in physical-treatment settings yet not mental-health settings is exactly backward.