In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-05-00176-CR
______________________________
LESSEL MEREDITH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 188th Judicial District Court
Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 32788-A
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Lessel Meredith appeals his conviction for delivery of cocaine in an amount greater than one gram but less than four grams. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(a), (c) (Vernon 2003). The issues Meredith raises in this appeal are identical to those he presents in a companion case. Since the arguments presented are identical in each appeal, for the reasons stated in Meredith v. State, cause number 06-05-00175-CR, we reform the trial court's judgment to reflect Meredith did not plead "true" to the State's punishment enhancement allegations, and we otherwise affirm the trial court's judgment in this case.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: January 31, 2006
Date Decided: April 4, 2006
Do Not Publish
n v. State, 504 S.W.2d 855, 857 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jones v. State, 833 S.W.2d 118, 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Dean v. State, 749 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).
Shaw properly objected to the line of questioning regarding the church burglary and obtained a running objection, preserving any error for appellate review. However, after obtaining the running objection, Shaw took an inconsistent stance by stating he had "no objection" to the admission of the photograph depicting the broken window of the church. By not qualifying his "no objection" in any way, Shaw has failed to preserve any complaint for appeal regarding the evidence of the church burglary.
Even if Shaw did not waive his running objection at that time, he later waived it by failing to object to the same facts when introduced by the testimony of Othell LaFerney, pastor of Glenwood Baptist Church. LaFerney testified regarding the break-in at the church and testified that a radio belonging to one of the Sunday School teachers was stolen. Although covered by the subject matter of the running objection, Shaw did not object to this testimony. This testimony occurred on a different day at trial and was introduced following the testimony of thirteen intervening witnesses.
We recognize that a properly framed running objection can extend to testimony by all witnesses pertaining to the same type of evidence, but such did not exist in this case. See Ford v. State, 919 S.W.2d 107, 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Huckaby v. A.G. Perry & Son, Inc., 20 S.W.3d 194, 203 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. denied); Scaggs v. State, 18 S.W.3d 277, 292-93 (Tex. App.-Austin 2000, pet. ref'd). Shaw did not request the running objection. Rather, the trial court granted the running objection sua sponte "on this line of questioning." Such running objection was not adequate to apply to all witnesses. By failing to object when the same evidence was offered again, Shaw waived any complaint as to the trial court's ruling. Fuentes, 991 S.W.2d at 273; Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Shaw has failed to preserve this complaint for appeal.
Shaw also complains about the testimony concerning his drug use. He first complains about the testimony of an investigating officer, Roxanne Bedwell, describing how Shaw used a beer can as a "pipe." The context of this testimony is as follows:
Q. . . . Was there some information that you had received from one of the jailers regarding the defendant.
A. Yes.
Q. As a result of receiving that information, what action did you take?
A. I spoke with the defendant in the jail and he agreed to go with myself and Chief Deputy Jordan to two different locations that he felt may help us in our investigation.
Q. Okay. And what, if anything, did you receive from those locations?
A. I found a beer can that had been made into a pipe to smoke marijuana . . . .
. . . .
Q. All right. And you indicated that you picked up a beer can; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. . . . [Y]ou said something about it being made into a pipe; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And did that match what the defendant told you as well?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Did he indicate he had used that particular item?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And if you could, explain to the jury how it was made into a pipe, if you can.
A. It had holes punctured on the top where you would lay the substance that you wanted to smoke and light it while you breath [sic] in through the hole that you drink out of.
Q. In the conversation that you had had with the defendant did he make any indication to you that he had utilized drugs during the period of time from March the 9th through March the 12th?
A. Yes, he did.
[Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, I object to that, not relevant to the cause at bar and just too general a question.
THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the objection.
Q. [By Prosecuting Attorney]: What kind of drugs did he indicate that he had used?
A. He indicated to me that he had used alcohol, marijuana dipped in formaldehyde, and crack cocaine.
The specific question to which Shaw objected concerned whether Shaw told Bedwell he used drugs between March 9 and March 12. There was no objection to the testimony regarding the beer can that was used as a "pipe." By failing to object to the officer's testimony regarding the "pipe," Shaw waived his right to complain on appeal about the admission of this evidence. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Mathis, 67 S.W.3d at 926-27; Ladd, 3 S.W.3d at 569.
Shaw further contends the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Bedwell quoted above concerning what kind of drugs he used. Shaw argues that this evidence was irrelevant to the crime for which he was charged and that his use of drugs was not connected to the commission of the crime.
Even assuming the last objection Shaw made before this testimony was given preserved the alleged error in the admission of this testimony, the State adduced this same evidence without further objection during its cross-examination of Bedwell, after Shaw called her as a witness. In order to preserve error, the objecting party must object each time the objectionable evidence is offered. Fuentes, 991 S.W.2d at 273; Ethington, 819 S.W.2d at 858. By failing to object when the same evidence was offered again, Shaw waived any complaint. Fuentes, 991 S.W.2d at 273; Ethington, 819 S.W.2d at 858.
We affirm the judgment.
Donald R. Ross
Justice
Date Submitted: May 16, 2002
Date Decided: June 12, 2002
Do Not Publish