TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

═══════════════

NO. 03-03-00566-CR

═══════════════

Adrian D. Lagunas, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR2003-104, HONORABLE GARY L. STEEL, JUDGE PRESIDING

═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

                        Appellant has raised an issue under the Confrontation Clause. See U.S. Const. amend VI. The parties have not yet addressed the possible implications of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), regarding that issue. We are to apply Crawford to pending cases, including this one. See Schriro v. Summerlin, 124 S. Ct. 2519, 2622-23 (2004); Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 320-328 (1987) (new rules always have retroactive application to criminal cases pending on direct review).

                        Accordingly, we request that the parties file a supplemental brief specifically addressing the following:

1.    Discuss the implications, if any, of Crawford, concerning the admissibility of declarations made by D.M., which were introduced at trial through Officer Sullivan.

2.   Would our application of Crawford differ due to the fact that:

       (a)   the declarant was a child, or

       (b)  the declarant was ruled incompetent to testify for reasons relating to her age and maturity?

3.   Was the admission of D.M.’s declarations, if error, harmless?

                        The appellant’s supplemental brief shall be filed no later than April 18, 2005, and the appellee’s response shall be filed no later than May 9, 2005.

                        It is ordered March 25, 2005.

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Do Not Publish