Twelfth Court of Appeals Holds Confrontation Clause Protections Inapplicable to Juvenile Discretionary Transfer Hearings

In the Matter of D.A., 12-25-00127-CV, February 18, 2026.

On appeal from the 475th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed a juvenile court’s discretionary transfer order, holding that the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause does not apply to juvenile waiver-of-jurisdiction hearings. Because these proceedings are jurisdictional in nature and do not determine guilt, innocence, or punishment, the admission of testimonial hearsay and social evaluation reports does not violate the constitutional right to confrontation.

Relevance to Family Law

While this case arises under Title 3 of the Texas Family Code (Juvenile Justice Code), its implications resonate for family law litigators handling high-stakes “quasi-civil” proceedings. The opinion reinforces the long-standing distinction between trial-phase rights and dispositional or jurisdictional phase rights. For practitioners handling SAPCRs or termination of parental rights cases where “social studies” or “expert reports” are common, this holding serves as a reminder that the constitutional strictures of Crawford v. Washington are generally confined to the “criminal prosecution” context. It underscores that in proceedings determining the forum or the “best interests” rather than criminal liability, the court’s reliance on hearsay-laden reports remains a powerful, and constitutionally permissible, tool for the State and the judiciary.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

D.A., a juvenile, was accused of capital murder involving a robbery and a vehicle fire. The State moved for a discretionary transfer to waive the juvenile court’s exclusive jurisdiction and move the case to adult criminal court. During the transfer hearing, the State introduced various forms of hearsay evidence. This included testimony from a gang expert regarding D.A.’s affiliations, testimony from an investigator who recounted statements made by co-defendants and witnesses, and reports from a mental health director and a juvenile probation officer. These reports contained school records, Texas Juvenile Justice Department records, and social evaluations. D.A. objected to the admission of this evidence, asserting that the use of hearsay and the introduction of testimonial reports without the opportunity to cross-examine the original declarants violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The juvenile court overruled the objections and granted the transfer to adult court.

Issues Decided

Does the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause apply to a juvenile discretionary transfer hearing to preclude the admission of hearsay testimony and social evaluation reports?

Rules Applied

The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause provides that in all “criminal prosecutions,” the accused has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. Under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), testimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial are admissible only where the declarant is unavailable and the defendant has had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. However, the Twelfth Court of Appeals noted that this is a “functional” trial right. Under Texas precedent, including Matter of C.W. and In re R.G.S., a juvenile waiver hearing is categorized as a jurisdictional proceeding rather than a criminal prosecution, because it does not result in a determination of delinquency or the imposition of punishment.

Application

The court analyzed the scope of the Sixth Amendment by focusing on the phrase “criminal prosecutions.” The court reasoned that a discretionary transfer hearing is not a trial on the merits. Instead, it is a preliminary stage to determine whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult. Relying on both juvenile-specific precedent and analogous holdings in the realms of parole and community supervision revocations (e.g., Ex Parte Zubiate and Diaz v. State), the court determined that the constitutional right to confrontation is not triggered in proceedings that do not adjudicate guilt. Since the juvenile court was only determining whether to waive jurisdiction, the admission of the detective’s hearsay regarding the murder investigation and the probation officer’s social evaluation report was constitutionally sound, even if those materials contained testimonial hearsay that would be inadmissible at a trial on the merits.

Holding

The Twelfth Court of Appeals held that the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation does not apply to juvenile discretionary transfer hearings. The court reasoned that because the hearing is a jurisdictional gateway and not a “criminal prosecution” that determines guilt or punishment, the constitutional protections outlined in Crawford are inapplicable.

The court affirmed the juvenile court’s order transferring D.A. to the adult district court, finding no error in the admission of the challenged hearsay and reports.

Practical Application

For litigators, this opinion clarifies that the “hearsay gate” is significantly wider in transfer hearings than in criminal trials or juvenile adjudication hearings. Counsel representing juveniles should focus their strategy on challenging the reliability of the hearsay under the Texas Rules of Evidence or asserting due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than relying on the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. Additionally, practitioners should be prepared for the heavy weight courts give to social evaluation reports, which are often the primary vehicle for the State’s case in these hearings.

Checklists

Challenging Evidence in Juvenile Transfer Hearings

• Identify Hearsay Sources: Distinguish between hearsay from law enforcement (police reports) and “business records” (school/medical records).
• Assess Statutory Compliance: Ensure the social evaluation report meets the requirements of Texas Family Code § 54.02.
• Focus on Due Process: If the Confrontation Clause is unavailable, argue that the evidence lacks sufficient “indicia of reliability” to satisfy 14th Amendment Due Process.
• Expert Qualification: Object to the qualifications of experts (like gang experts) under TRE 702 independently of hearsay objections.

Minimizing the Impact of Social Reports

• Early Discovery: Secure the probation officer’s file and the mental health evaluation well in advance of the hearing.
• Rebuttal Witnesses: Since you cannot exclude the report on Confrontation grounds, prepare to call the primary sources (teachers, counselors, etc.) as your own witnesses to contradict the report’s findings.
• Limiting Scope: Move to strike specific portions of the report that are purely speculative or outside the expertise of the author.

Citation

In the Matter of D.A., No. 12-25-00127-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 18, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

~~eb4e1776-ab5e-4ecb-8c02-1db7dc858a81~~