Green v. Reyes 836 S.W.2d 203 836 S.W.2d 203 (Cite as: 836 S.W.2d 203) Page 11 court on appeal. Tex.R.App.P. 74(f). Regardless of appellant's failure to do so, affidavits of persons who thereby admit under oath an action which can subject them to criminal liability may be properly admitted at trial as an exception to the hearsay rule as statements against their interest. [FN9] See Tex.R.Civ.Evid. 803(24) (Pamph.1992). Further, telephone depositions of witnesses are allowed under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. [FN10] See Tex.R.Civ.P. 202(2) *214 (Pamph.1992). Therefore, appellant's thirteenth and fourteenth points of error are overruled. FN9. Tex.R.Civ.Evid. 803(24) (Pamph.1992). Rule 803(24) is an exception to the hearsay rule and states as follows: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (24) Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject him to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by him against another, or to make him an object of hatred, ridicule, or disgrace, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. Id. FN10. Tex.R.Civ.P. 202(2) (Pamph.1992). "The parties may stipulate in writing, or the court may upon motion order, that a deposition be taken by telephone...." Id. See also Clone Component Dist. v. State, 819 S.W.2d 593, 597-600 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1991, no writ). In Clone, appellant challenged the validity of telephone depositions where the court reporter was not physically in the same room as the deponent but rather was in the same location as the interrogator. Id. at 597. It was appellant's contention that these circumstances made it impossible for the reporter to know whether the deponent was truly placed under the oath. Id. The court ruled that "[t]o require the State to hire a separate court reporter for each witness in order that the reporter can be in the physical presence of the deponent when a single reporter could adequately record all of the depositions over the telephone without harm to the rights of appellants would not be in accordance with our duty to interpret the Rules of Civil Procedure liberally 'to obtain a just, fair, equitable and impartial adjudication of the rights of the litigants under established principles of substantive law ... with as great expedition and dispatch and at the least expense ... to the litigants ... as may be practicable.' Tex.R.Civ.P. 1." Id. at 598. "Nowhere do the Rules of Civil Procedure require that the deponent be physically present before the court reporter either for being sworn or for the recording of the testimony." Id. We agree. This court will not entertain any motions for rehearing pursuant to Tex.Elec.Code Ann. § 232.014(e) (Vernon 1986). [FN11] FN11. Tex.Elec.Code Ann. § 232.014(e) (Vernon 1986). Section 232.014(e) vests the discretion to refuse to grant motions for rehearing in appeals from election contests as follows: The court of appeals may refuse to permit a motion for rehearing to be filed or may reduce the time for filing the motion. Id. Further, [t]he decision of the court of appeals is not reviewable by the supreme court by certified question or any other method. Tex.Elec.Code Ann. § 232.014(f) (Vernon 1986). Having found no merit in any of appellant's eighteen points of error and finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue the mandate of the Court immediately. 836 S.W.2d 203 END OF DOCUMENT © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 237