Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00520-CR
Fabian RODRIGUEZ, Jr.,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15-1121-CR-A
Honorable Daniel H. Mills, Judge Presiding 1
Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 15, 2016
AFFIRMED
Fabian Rodriguez was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child, attempted sexual
assault of a child, attempted indecency with a child, and two counts of bail jumping. In his sole
point of error on appeal, Rodriguez argues the trial court erred by allowing the State’s expert
consulting psychologist to testify. We hold Rodriguez failed to preserve the issue for appeal, and
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
1
Senior Judge, sitting by assignment
04-15-00520-CR
During its case in chief, the State presented the testimony of psychologist Dr. William Lee
Carter. Dr. Carter’s testimony was based on his knowledge, education, and experience, and on his
review of police records, medical records, and witness statements. Dr. Carter testified generally
about victims of child sexual abuse, how children typically respond to abuse, and how the
relationship between the victim and the perpetrator can affect that response. Dr. Carter also
answered various hypothetical questions that mirrored the facts of the case. Rodriguez took Dr.
Carter on voir dire before he testified to the jury. At the conclusion of the voir dire, counsel stated
he had no objection to Dr. Carter testifying, and counsel made no objections during Dr. Carter’s
testimony to the jury.
On appeal, Rodriguez argues Dr. Carter’s testimony was inadmissible under Rules of
Evidence 401 and 702 because he did not take “into account enough of the pertinent facts to be of
assistance to the trier of fact on a fact in issue.” Rodriguez concedes he did not object to the
expert’s testimony at trial, but contends he may raise the issue for the first time on appeal because
its admission rendered the trial fundamentally unfair.
“Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a
substantial right of the party is affected, and ‘. . . [i]n case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a
timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if
the specific ground was not apparent from the context.’” Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 886-
87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (quoting TEX. R. EVID. 103(a)(1)); see TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1). Only
the most fundamental errors may be raised for the first time on appeal. Saldano, 70 S.W.3d at
887-88. These fall into “two relatively small categories of errors: violations of ‘rights which are
waivable only’ and denials of ‘absolute systemic requirements.’” Id. at 888 (quoting Marin v.
State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)). Rights that are “waivable only” include the
right to assistance of counsel, the right to trial by jury, and rights conferred by a statute that
-2-
04-15-00520-CR
affirmatively states the right is waivable only. Id. “Absolute, systemic requirements” include
jurisdiction of the person and subject matter, the Texas constitutional requirement that a district
court must conduct its proceedings at the county seat, and the constitutional prohibition of ex post
facto laws. Id. at 888-89.
“That the State refrain from introducing evidence that violates the defendant’s rights . . . is
neither an absolute, systemic requirement nor a right that is waivable only.” Id. at 889. The Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals has “consistently held that the failure to object in a timely and specific
manner during trial forfeits complaints about the admissibility of evidence. This is true even
though the error may concern a constitutional right of the defendant.” Id. (footnote omitted).
Rodriguez presents no argument that admission of expert testimony that does not meet the
requirements of Rules of Evidence 401 and 702 is fundamental error that may be raised for the
first time on appeal. By failing to object to Dr. Carter’s testimony at trial, Rodriguez waived
appellate review of any error associated with the testimony. See Fuller v. State, 253 S.W.3d 220,
232-33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (holding that by failing to object to expert testimony regarding
future dangerousness, appellant waived appellate review of any error associated with testimony);
Resendiz v. State, 112 S.W.3d 541, 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (holding that because appellant
did not object to reliability of expert testimony at trial, he did not preserve error for appellate
review); Saldano, 70 S.W.3d at 891 (holding defendant’s failure to object to expert testimony
precludes complaint on appeal that testimony was offered for sole purpose of appealing to the
potential racial prejudices of the jury).
We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-