Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Criminal Law Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant requested pretrial written notice of the state’s intent to impeach any witness with evidence of conviction of a crime, but the state did not respond. The trial court nonetheless allowed the state to impeach appellant with his prior convictions for criminal mischief and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. HOLDING:Vacated and remanded. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33 governs the preservation of appellate complaints. To preserve error for appellate review under Rule 33.1(a), the record must show that: 1. the complaining party made a timely and specific request, objection, or motion; and 2. the trial judge either ruled on the request, objection, or motion (expressly or implicitly), or he refused to rule and the complaining party objected to that refusal. The court recently discussed rule 33.1 in Martinez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). To preserve error, an objection must be timely, specific, pursued to an adverse ruling, and, with two exceptions, contemporaneous that is, made each time inadmissible evidence is offered: “Under Texas law, if, on appeal, a defendant claims the trial judge erred in admitting evidence offered by the State, this error must have been preserved by a proper objection and a ruling on that objection. A proper objection is one that is specific and timely. Further, with two exceptions, the law in Texas requires a party to continue to object each time inadmissible evidence is offered. The two exceptions require counsel to either (1) obtain a running objection, or (2) request a hearing outside the presence of the jury.” This second exception noted in Martinez is found in Texas Rule of Evidence 103(a)(1), which provides, in part, that “[w]hen the court hears objections to offered evidence out of the presence of the jury and rules that such evidence be admitted, such objections shall be deemed to apply to such evidence when it is admitted before the jury without the necessity of repeating those objections.” In this case, there was just such an objection outside the presence of the jury. The hearing was short and to the point. The trial court’s ruling was not an adverse ruling on a motion in limine. Rather, it was an adverse ruling, outside the presence of the jury, on the admissibility of appellant’s prior convictions for impeachment purposes in the face of a specific and timely objection based on rule 609(f). Under rule 103(a)(1), it was not necessary to repeat the objection to the convictions once they were used in front of the jury. Although the court of appeals was correct in stating that appellant filed a written motion in limine concerning the use of any prior convictions, this motion was apparently never expressly ruled upon by the trial court. More importantly, this motion did not request that such evidence be excluded. As a true motion in limine,it merely requested that the state not be permitted to mention any evidence of prior convictions to the jury until a hearing had been held outside the presence of the jury to determine their admissibility. That is precisely the proper purpose of a motion in limine. A trial judge’s grant or denial of a motion in limineis a preliminary ruling only and normally preserves nothing for appellate review. In discussing the proper, practical purpose of a motion in limine, this court stated in Norman v. State, 523 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975):”The purpose of a motion in limine is to prevent particular matters from coming before the jury. It is, in practice, a method of raising objection to an area of inquiry prior to the matter reaching the ears of the jury through a posed question, jury argument, or other means. As such, it is wider in scope than the sustaining of an objection made after the objectionable matter has been expressed. However, it is also, by its nature, subject to reconsideration by the court throughout the course of the trial. This is because it may not be enforced to exclude properly admissible evidence.” On the other hand, appellant’s request �- made outside the presence of the jury, after the State had rested, and immediately before appellant testified �- sought a definitive final ruling on a timely and specific motion to exclude evidence. Because appellant made a timely and sufficiently specific objection which complied with Rule 103(a)(1) and the trial court expressly ruled on that objection, appellant preserved his complaint concerning Rule 609(f). OPINION:Cochran, J.; Meyers, Price, Womack, Johnson, Keasler and Holcomb, JJ., join. Keller, P.J., and Hervey, J., concur.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.