By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law

2004 Case Summaries
2003 Case Summaries
2002 Case Summaries
2001 Case Summaries
2000 Case Summaries
1999 Case Summaries

Running objection did not preserve error when the same testimony was presented without objection by another witness [In re P.R.P.] (04-3-17).

On July 7, 2004, the Waco Court of Appeals held that a running objection to extraneous offense testimony did not preserve error when the same testimony was later presented by another witness without further objection.

04-3-17. In the Matter of P.R.P., UNPUBLISHED, No. 10-03-00129-CV, 2004 WL 1574602, 2004 Tex.App.Lexis ___ (Tex.App.-Waco 7/7/04) Texas Juvenile Law (5th Ed. 2000).

Facts: P.R.P. was adjudicated delinquent for committing the offense of assault on a public servant. The juvenile court placed him on probation for one year.

Held: Affirmed.

Opinion Text: In his sole issue, P.R.P. contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of an extraneous offense alleged to have been committed by P.R.P. The State responds that P.R.P. did not preserve this complaint for our review because he neglected to object each time evidence about the extraneous offense was introduced.

Generally, a party must continue to object each time inadmissible evidence is offered, with two exceptions, only one of which is argued by P.R.P. Martinez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). The exception argued by P.R.P. allows a party to obtain a running objection. Id. P.R.P. obtained a running objection during the testimony of the first witness to testify about the alleged extraneous offense. But an attempt to preserve error by using a running objection runs the risk of failing to comply with Rule 33.1. Tex.R.App. P. 33.1. Thus, an advocate who lodges a running objection should take pains to make sure it does not encompass too broad a reach of subject matter over too broad a time or over different witnesses. Sattiewhite v. State, 786 S.W.2d 271, 283 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); see also In the Interest of A.P., 42 S.W.3d 248, 260 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, no pet.). P.R.P. did not object when the State introduced this same evidence through a different witness. P.R.P. failed to preserve this complaint. Thus, nothing is presented for our review. Tex.R.App. P. 33.1.

2003 Case Summaries     2002 Case Summaries     2001 Case Summaries     2000 Case Summaries     1999 Case Summaries