the trial court could have reasonably concluded that appellant had “adopted” Andrade as his agent. Because this case is factually distinguishable from Durbin, we do not find it controlling. In this case, the threshold question is whether the translated statement at issue should be attributed to Andrade or appellant. The Texas Rules of Evidence provide that a statement is not hearsay if it is offered against a party and is (1) “a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject” or (2) “a statement by the party’s agent ... concerning a matter within the scope of the agency ..., made during the existence of the relationship.” Tex.R. Evzd. 801(e)(2)(C),(D); see also Mitchell v. State, 780 S.W.2d 862, 864 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). A growing majority of jurisdictions allow
holding that testimony by police officer to effect that informant told him that defendant and his accomplice had come to informants home and discussed purchase of five kilograms of cocaine was not hearsay because statement was made by informant who was authorized by defendant to communicate such information to police officer under rule 801e2c holding that information from confidential informant was reliable and credible where affidavit referred to previous instances in which informant provided correct information to police affiants own investigation and controlled buy of contraband confirmed information and second informant supplied same information to police holding that defendant was seized where the officer told defendant that she knew that he was on probation defendant admitted to the officer that he had given her a false name and defendant was asked for consent to search a backpack because a reasonable inference was that defendant was the subject of a continuing investigation and his or her freedom of movement had been significantly restricted by the officers show of authority holding that defendant had the right to refuse to answer questions put to him by police officer who had called him holding corroborating evidence sufficient that officer drove informant to defendants house saw defendant admit informant and saw informant come out with drugs and defendants voice was identified on audio tape of transaction