Bell v. State

1 Citing case

  1. McCleery v. State

    NO. 03-17-00154-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 20, 2017)   Cited 3 times
    Finding trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted photographs because they constituted "evidence regarding the nature of the relationship between" the defendant and the victim under article 38.371

    Accordingly, it appears that McCleery has waived this issue for appellate review. See Bell v. State, No. 11-10-00279-CR, 2012 WL 5351134, at *12 (Tex. App.—Eastland Oct. 31, 2012, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (determining that defendant waived issue regarding admission of photographs when defendant failed to object to testimony "about the injuries both prior to and after the admission of the photographs"); Fernandez v. State, No. 14-04-00144-CR, 2005 WL 2076492, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 3, 2005, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (determining that defendant "waived his relevancy objection under Rule 401 because the same information depicted on the videotape was otherwise communicated to the jury"). We note, as stated by one of our sister courts of appeals, that "[t]he Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that unobjected-to testimony regarding the same subject matter as that depicted in a photograph does not result in waiver of an objection to the inflammatory nature of the photograph unless the testimony conveys the same aspects of the photograph which would be likely to inflame the minds of the jurors."