In order for computer data to not be considered hearsay, the data must be computer self-generated as part of the computer's internal system (e.g. functions that monitor the status of the system, counting records and et cetera) and not data entered by
a person. See Smith v. State, 866 S.W.2d 731 at 732 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no pet.) (recognizing that computer self-generated data is not hearsay); Murray v.
State, 804 S.W.2d 279, at 283-284 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1991, pet. ref'd) (recognizing computer self-generated data that is the result of a computer's internal operations as being in contradistinction to data that reflects statements placed into the computer by a person, and that the former is not hearsay where the latter is ); Ly v.
State, 908 S.W.2d 598 at 600-601 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no pet. h.) (stating, "A computer self-generated printout that does not represent the output of statements placed into the computer by out of court declarants is not hearsay," and further defining that "computer self-generated data" is such that has "no reliance upon human input."); Burleson v. State, 802 S.W.2d 429 at 439-440 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1991, pet. ref'd) (recognizing that a count of computer records is computer self-generated data that is not hearsay whereas the actual content of such records entered by persons is hearsay); Murray, supra ("Often, a computer printout amounts to the feeding back of data placed into the computer by a person; although the data may be in different form than it
was when it was fed into the computer, it retains its status as the statement or statements made by a person.").
