I'm not sure what you are getting at Ohiogal. PC 16.02 is the wiretap statute. No one is talking about intercepting conversations we are talking about recording one's OWN conversation. 16.02 (c)(4)(A) specifically makes an exception for the type of call/recording that WilliamRuben wants to make.
I took that language you quoted and ran it through Westlaw. It does not appear in any case Texas, Federal, or otherwise. That language certainly is not contained in 16.02. A quick google search shows that it is a common "internet answer" used on forums and appears to originate from a press cite. It is a catch all summary of much more than just 16.02. In any case the language specifically says the opposite of what you are arguing. If the conversation is obtained from the person in a consensual conversation and the recording was not made for a criminal purpose then it can be disclosed. When it says criminal purpose it means that the recording constituted a crime (ex: unlawful wiretap) not that the recording be made for prosecution purposes. If you go to the actual statute of 16.02 this is clear, as it uses the language, "intercepted for the purpose of committing an unlawful act." Futhermore, this section only applies when the person doing the recording is not a party to the conversation, but just has consent of one of the parties. ( its section (c)(4). ) This section does not apply when the recorder is an actual party to the conversation as is the case with WilliamRuben's scenario.
Yes of course the hearsay rule applies equally to recordings as to anything else but we are talking about recording the statements of someone who ultimately would be charged with the crime and those are not subject to the hearsay rule. I don't even mean they are exceptions to the hearsay rule, they literally are considered NOT to be hearsay at all. See TRE 801(e)(2.) Crane is a bizarre case to cite because in that case it was the Defendant trying to admit his own recorded statement, which IS hearsay. If that same recording had been offered by the State it would have been admissible.
It would be ridiculous for the victim in a criminal case to get on the stand and testify that, "The Defendant called me and said he was going to kill me" and for the State to not then be able to play a recording of that conversation.
WilliamRuben, you can absolutely call this person and see if he will confess and yes it can be used in trial against that person.