By failing to argue Confrontation Clause in trial,
juvenile waived those objections on appeal.[Robinson v. State](10-1-4)
On January 28, 2010, the Houston Court of Appeals (14th
Dist.), stated that when a party's argument for admitting evidence could refer
to either the Rules of Evidence or the Confrontation Clause, he must
specifically articulate that the Confrontation Clause demands admission of the
evidence to preserve error on this ground.
10-1-4. Robinson v. State, MEMORANDUM, No.
14-08-00913-CR, 2010 WL 307920 (Tex.App.-Hous. (14 Dist.), 1/28/10).
Facts: Appellant and David Mason were both charged
with murder of a game-room manager in connection with their unsuccessful attempt
to rob the business. At appellant's trial, the State presented the testimony of
Mason, who implicated appellant in the offense. During direct examination, Mason
confirmed he pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery relative to the offense and
received a ten-year prison sentence plus dismissal of a misdemeanor marijuana
charge.
During cross-examination, despite the State's
objections under Rules of Evidence 609 and 403, the trial court allowed
appellant to elicit testimony that Mason had a previous juvenile conviction for
robbery. SeeTex.R.
Evid. 609 (prescribing circumstances under which
witness may be impeached by evidence of prior criminal conviction but providing,
Evidence of juvenile adjudications is not admissible, except for proceedings
conducted pursuant to Title III, Family Code, in which the witness is a party,
under this rule unless required to be admitted by the Constitution of the United
States or Texas.);
Tex.R. Evid. 403 (providing relevant
evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by
the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury,
or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative
evidence.).
Appellant then asked Mason, What were the facts of
that case? The State again objected on relevancy,
Rule 609, and
Rule 403 grounds. Appellant argued
that the facts of the juvenile offense were admissible to impeach Mason by
showing bias and prejudice. Specifically, appellant suggested Mason testified
against appellant only because Mason received a favorable plea agreement
relative to the offense at issue; thus, the facts of the juvenile offense, which
might have enhanced Mason's punishment if he had been tried for murder, were
probative to show why he pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and testified
against appellant. The trial court sustained the State's objection.
Held: Affirmed
Memorandum Opinion: Appellant contends the trial
court violated his constitutional right to confrontation by excluding the
proffered testimony; thus, we should conduct a de novo review of its
ruling. However, appellant failed to preserve error on this complaint. To
preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a timely objection or
request to the trial court, sufficiently stating the specific grounds for the
requested ruling, unless apparent from the context, and obtain an adverse
ruling. SeeTex.R.App.
P. 33.1(a);
Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).
Moreover, the objection or request at trial must comport with the complaint
presented on appeal.
Wilson, 71 S.W.3d at 349. Even
constitutional errors may be waived by failure to object at trial.
Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 918 (Tex.Crim.App.1995).
When a party's argument for admitting evidence could refer to either the Rules
of Evidence or the Confrontation Clause, he must specifically articulate that
the Confrontation Clause demands admission of the evidence to preserve error on
this ground. See
Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 179 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).
In this case, appellant's argument at trial could have
encompassed grounds for admission of the proffered testimony under the Rules of
Evidence or the Confrontation Clause. In fact, the State's objections, to which
appellant responded, were all based on the Rules of Evidence. Appellant's
complaint on appeal is based entirely on an alleged violation of the
Confrontation Clause; he makes no argument for admission of the testimony under
the Rules of Evidence. However, appellant did not inform the trial court that
the Confrontation Clause demanded admission of the proffered testimony or
present any constitutional arguments. Therefore, appellant waived his
Confrontation Clause complaint. See id. (holding defendant waived error
on appellate complaint that exclusion of proffered testimony violated
Confrontation Clause because his suggestion to trial court testimony was not
hearsay, was relevant, and was offered to challenge witness's credibility could
refer to Rules of Evidence or Confrontation Clause and he failed to argue that
Confrontation Clause demanded admission).
Conclusion: Accordingly, we overrule
appellant's sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.