Opinion
Nos. 05-05-00059-CR, 05-05-00136-CR, 05-05-00137-CR, 05-05-00138-CR
Opinion issued January 12, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F03-53381-SN, F95-76642-JN, F95-76643-JN, F96-45589-MN. Affirmed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, WRIGHT, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Derrick Lamont Brooks appeals his convictions for murder, aggravated assault, and two counts of deadly conduct. In 1997, a jury convicted appellant of aggravated assault and assessed punishment at ten years' confinement, probated for ten years. Thereafter, appellant pleaded guilty to the two deadly conduct charges, and pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court assessed punishment in each case at ten years' confinement, probated for ten years, and a $500 fine. In 2004, a jury found appellant guilty of murder, and the trial court assessed punishment at fifty years' confinement. Subsequently, the trial court revoked appellant's probation in the aggravated assault and deadly conduct cases and assessed punishment at ten years' confinement in each case. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court erred by allowing certain testimony by an expert witness. We overrule appellant's issue and affirm the trial court's judgment. Specifically, appellant complains that the trial court erred by allowing Heather Thomas, a firearms examiner at the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences (SWIFS), to testify about the contents of a report by another firearms examiner at SWIFS. However, the record shows that appellant had "no objection" when the report was offered and then admitted into evidence. To preserve error, a party must either object and get a ruling each time the inadmissible evidence is offered or obtain a running objection. See Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). Any error in admitting evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection. Id.; Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). Because the report was admitted into evidence without objection, appellant forfeited any complaint regarding Thomas's testimony about the contents of the report. See Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 193; Leday, 983 S.W.2d at 717. We overrule appellant's sole issue. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgments.
Appellant filed separate briefs in each cause number, each raising the same issue. For convenience, we address his complaints together.