Ruby Joyce Jackson v. State

Jackson v. State

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-92-057-CR

     RUBY JOYCE JACKSON,

                                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                                              Appellee

From the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court # 612,115

                                                                                                    

OPINION ON REHEARING

                                                                                                    

      Our opinion of October 30, 1992 cites Cannon v. State, 537 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) on the last line of page three. The citation should read Creeks v. State, 537 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976).

      Appellant's motion for rehearing is denied.

 

                                                                                 BILL VANCE

                                                                                 Justice

Before Justice Cummings and

          Justice Vance

          (Chief Justice Thomas not participating)

Motion denied

Opinion delivered and filed December 9, 1992

Do not publish

tyle='font-family:Palatino'>(“constitutional errors may be waived or forfeited by a failure to make a timely and specific assertion of the right”).  His due process complaint is not preserved for appellate review.

Moreover, “error [if any] in the admission of evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection.”  Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); see Roberson v. State, 100 S.W.3d 36, 40 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. ref’d).  As the State points out, Detective Steve January, Mark Hodde, and June Hodde all testified without objection to the contents of the photographs.  A list of items stolen from the Hoddes’ home, including items depicted in the photographs, was admitted into evidence without objection.  In light of this unobjected to evidence, any error in admitting the photographs was harmless.  See Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 193; see also Roberson, 100 S.W.3d at 40.

Accordingly, we overrule Phillips’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

 

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed October 3, 2007

Do not publish

[CR25]

 

 

 

 

---

[1]             Article 39.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for discovery of particular evidence that is in the “possession, custody or control of the State or any of its agencies.”  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 39.14(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006).  “[D]enial of a proper discovery request, either during or before trial, may violate a defendant's due process rights.”  Valdez v. State, 116 S.W.3d 94, 99 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d); see Ealoms v. State, 983 S.W.2d 853, 859 (Tex. App.—Waco 1998, pet. ref'd).