several hours after making the written statements. Appellant was provided with these statements. 6 . In the trial court and on appeal, appellant has disclaimed any suggestion of prosecutorial misconduct and has not challenged the detective's testimony that he lost the statements accidentally and never gave them to the prosecution. 7 . Tex.R. Evid. 615(a). 8 . 912 S.W.2d 793, 819 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (op. on reh’g); see also Olivas v. State, No. 08-99-00442-CR, 2000 WL 18 g officers’ handwritten statements and evidence forms that were kept at drug task force office and had never been provided to the prosecutor were not in the prosecutor’s possession); Baker v. State, No. 05-97-00986-CR, 1999 WL 418314, at *6 (Tex.App.-Dallas June 24, 1999, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). 13 . Tex.R. Evid. 615(e). 14 . See Marquez v.
holding officers did not have a realistic opportunity to intervene because they were not present at the time of the shooting holding that state was not required to produce statements that were not in its possession at the time of request because they had been destroyed pursuant to document retention policies holding that no seizure occurred where shots were fired at a truck but did not hit the suspect because they failed to produce a stop holding that in connection with a motion to dismiss the court may consider a document not attached to the pleadings where the plaintiffs claim depends on the contents of a document the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint holding that defendants had no standing where they conceded that they did not own the automobile searched and were simply passengers the owner of the car had been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the search