You may answer the question. [STAIRHIME]: Yes. In order for me to come to court and testify to a positive identification, I would have to have at least one more examiner ... come to the same conclusion. Appellant is correct in arguing that the trial court erred when it permitted Officer Stairhime to indirectly testify to Officer Saldivar’s conclusion about the print. In criminal cases, Texas Rule of Evidence 803(8)(B) excludes as inadmissible hearsay any record, report, statement, or data compilation which sets forth matters “observed by a police officer and other law enforcement personnel.” Tex.R. Evid. 80S(8)(B); Baker v. State, 177 S.W.3d 113, 122 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (citing Cole v. State, 839 S.W.2d 798, 804-07, 804 n. 8 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (op. on reh’g) (<HOLDING>)). Here, Officer Stairhime’s testimony that the
holding that fulltime forensic chemists employed by texas department of public safety were lawenforcement personnel whose reports were not admissible under publicrecord hearsay exception rule 8038b or businessrecord hearsay exception rule 8036 holding that victims statements were hearsay admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule and constitutionally permissible under ohio v roberts citations omitted holding florida drivers handbook hearsay and not within any recognized exception to hearsay rule holding that records referring to defendant as escaped prisoner and escape risk were not admissible because exception for public records rule 8038b specifically excluded them as records of law enforcement personnel further holding that specific exclusion controlled over businessrecord hearsay exception rule 8036 holding that an objection on hearsay grounds did not preserve for appeal an exception to the hearsay rule that was not specifically raised