Opinion
No. 05-10-00893-CR
07-24-2012
LAKEITH FOWLER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
AFFIRM; Opinion Filed July 24, 2012.
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court Number Nine
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. MA08-72844K
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Moseley, and Myers
Opinion By Justice Moseley
A jury convicted Lakeith Fowler of assaulting a person with whom he shared a dating relationship. Bringing a single issue on appeal, Fowler asserts the “trial court's collective abuses of discretion in prohibiting cross-examination of relevant lines of inquiry deprived Appellant of the constitutional right to present a defense.” The background and facts of the case are well-known to the parties; thus, we do not recite them here. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Fowler cites four specific actions taken by the trial court to support his argument. Because Fowler did not lodge his complaints with the trial court, his complaints were not preserved for appeal.
Fowler's first challenge is to the trial court's decision to limit the victim's testimony. While Fowler's attorney was cross-examining the victim at trial, the trial court interrupted the proceedings and recessed the court to allow the victim to speak with an attorney before continuing her testimony. When the trial court resumed its proceedings (outside the jury's presence), the judge asked the parties whether they wanted to put anything on the record. The State asked for an instruction to the jury to disregard a portion of the victim's testimony elicited prior to the recess. In response, the trial judge stated she would not allow any further questioning about that matter. Fowler's counsel replied “And that's not a problem, Judge. I think we had accomplished everything that we intended to accomplish at this point, and we're ready to change anyway, so I think we're in fine shape.”
On appeal, however, Fowler complains “the trial court refused to allow further questioning on the subject. The trial court's ruling was an abuse of discretion because defense counsel was prohibited from further developing [the victim's] motive to lie or embellish the alleged offense.” (Citation to record omitted). Because Fowler's counsel did not object to the trial court's ruling at trial (and in fact told the judge that her ruling was “not a problem”), Fowler did not preserve this objection for appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a) (to preserve error for appellate review, a timely, specific objection must be made and ruled on in the trial court); Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Fowler's second, third, and fourth challenges point to instances when the trial court sustained the State's objections to questions asked by Fowler's counsel on cross examination of the State's witnesses. In each instance, after the trial court sustained the State's objection, Fowler's counsel asked the witness another question. Moreover, Fowler's counsel did not object or otherwise inform the trial court that sustaining the State's objections deprived Fowler of his constitutional right to present a defense. Accordingly, Fowler failed to preserve these arguments for appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); see generally Harts v. State, No. 05-04-00495-CR, 2005 WL 845437, at *4 (Tex. App.-Dallas Apr. 13, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
We overrule Fowler's sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.
JIM MOSELEY
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
100893F.U05
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
LAKEITH FOWLER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 05-10-00893-CR
Appeal from the County Criminal Court Number Nine of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. Cause No. MA08-72844K).
Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Justices Morris and Myers participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered July 24, 2012.
JIM MOSELEY
JUSTICE