 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jacobs v. State5/20/2004
f proving each and every book entry by the person actually making such entry." Crane v. State, 786 S.W.2d 338, 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).
Even if the formal requirements of the exception are shown, the indispensable, fundamental trustworthiness of the proffered record must be evident, including the requirement that the records have the "'indicia of reliability.'" Id. Even if a record qualifies as a business record, not all of the contents of that record may be admissible. See Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (a comment made by a person who does not have a business duty to report must independently qualify for admission under another hearsay exception).
Before we examine the substance of Jacobs' point of error, we must determine whether error has been preserved. Any error in admitting evidence must have been preserved by a proper objection and ruling. Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Skeen v. State, 96 S.W.3d 567, 575 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. ref'd). The objection must have been timely and include the basis for the objection unless the particular ground was apparent from the context. Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907, 908-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Skeen, 96 S.W.3d at 575.
Specific objections are required to preserve error in order to afford the trial court the opportunity to rule and allow the opposing counsel an opportunity to remedy the defect or supply other testimony. Johnson v. State, 901 S.W.2d 525, 533 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, pet. ref'd). Rule 33.1(a)(1)(A) requires that an objection state the grounds for the ruling being sought "with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint." Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. Such specificity is not required, though, if "the specific grounds were apparent from the context." Id.; see Cofield v. State, 891 S.W.2d 952, 954 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). In Lankston, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that, under the predecessor to Rule 33.1, "no technical considerations or form of words" are necessary and that all that is required is to "let the trial judge know what he wants, why he thinks himself entitled to it, and to do so clearly enough for the judge to understand him at a time when the trial court is in a proper position to do something about it." Lankston, 827 S.W.2d at 909. Making the trial court aware of the complaint requires that both the grounds and what is being objected to be apparent. See Hernandez v. State, 599 S.W.2d 614, 617 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980) (op. on reh'g).
" hen an exhibit contains both admissible and inadmissible material the objection must specifically refer to the material deemed objectionable." Beltran v. State, 728 S.W.2d 382, 387 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Gilbert v. State, 840 S.W.2d 138, 145 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.); see Hernandez, 599 S.W.2d at 617 (op. on reh'g). In Gilbert, the First Court of Appeals held that the failure to make an objection that specifically referred to the inadmissible parts of a letter failed to preserve error, even though parts of the letter may have been inadmissible. Gilbert, 840 S.W.2d at 145. In Hernandez, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that failure to specifically refer to the inadmissible parts of a "pen packet" introduced at the punishment phase failed to preserve the error in admitting the entire "pen packet." Hernandez, 599 S.W.2d at 617 (op. on reh'g).
Jacobs was required to make an objection with sufficient specificity that the trial court could be aware of what he was complaining about. The record in pertinent part is as follows:
[Prosecutor]: Your Honor, at this time I'm going to move to offer into evidence State'
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|