Can we use it? Scenario is this. Defendant is on trial in Texas for Sexual Assault of victim. The same defendant plead guilty to sexual assault of same victim in Colorado, the sexual assault occurred after the sexual assault in Texas, but the court system worked faster. As part of the PSI, the defendant admitted and handwrote to the probation officer "I have had sexual contact with [victim]." We have the probation officer here to testify. Can we use this "admission" of guilt in our case-in-chief? Doesn't 38.37 make this admission relevant as pertaining to their prior and subsequent relationship? Also, he was convicted in Colorado for the sexual assault of the same victim and given 20 years probation - can we use the conviction in our case-in-chief?

The probation officer appears to have personal knowledge of what the defendant said and can authenticate the writing. Rules 404 and 405 do not apply or provide a basis for objection. The statement is not subject to Rule 802 (as stated in 801(e)(2)). Let us know what objection is voiced.

The fact of the conviction (at least if final) seems relevant, but watch for a ruling under Rule 403.

That's my 2 cents.

Well, it should be admissible under prior contact between victim and offender going to their relationship but primarily I would see it as an admission by a party opponent, so long as it was not couched in terms such as "In Colorada" or "In this case" (referring to colorado).

Good move getting the PO, that is the necessary witness to present. Powerful stuff. Good luck!

Your D may attempt to qualify that statement (i.e. I only meant that AS TO the colorado case), but of course he would have to take the stand for that and I think any difference would be lost on the jury.

The judge let the Colorado probation officer testify about what the defendant told her during the PSI interview in Colorado. Also the judge let her testify that the defendant plead guilty to the offense in Colorado. No documents were allowed, just her testimony. The judge ruled it was relevant, more probative than prejudicial, and went to their prior and subsequent relationship under 38.37. The jury took 20 minutes to convict him. Way to go Mary Kucera!