Rosser v. State

Full title: WILLIAM FLETCHER ROSSER, III, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco

Date published: Jun 1, 2005

No. 10-04-00210-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 1, 2005)

Opinion

No. 10-04-00210-CR

Memorandum opinion delivered and filed June 1, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.

Appeal from the 1st District Court, Jasper County, Texas, Trial Court # 9755-JD. Affirmed.

Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA. (Justice VANCE concurring with note)^_

_ "(Justice Vance concurs. I believe that we owe it to the litigants, the higher courts, the Bench and Bar, and the public generally to provide more of the facts and our analysis in memorandum opinions, particularly when it takes the State 25 pages to explain the trial court's ruling that the statement was not admissible under the outcry statute.)"

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice.

Appellant appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(B)(ii)-(iii), (2)(B) (Vernon 2003). We will affirm. In his first issue, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling Appellant's hearsay objection to the victim's oral recorded statement. Appellant argues only that the evidence was not admissible under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.071, which makes the testimony of certain child victims admissible. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.071 (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). The State correctly argues that the evidence was admissible, without regard to Article 38.071, under the outcry rule. See id. art. 38.072 (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). We overrule Appellant's first issue. In his second issue, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling Appellant's objection to testimony of a nurse who examined the victim. Appellant's claim on appeal, namely that the witness was not qualified to give expert testimony on the witness's credibility, does not comport with his trial objection to speculation. Thus Appellant has preserved nothing for review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Resendiz v. State, 112 S.W.3d 541, 547 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1032 (2004); Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). We overrule Appellant's second issue. Having overruled Appellant's issues, we affirm the judgment.