Opinion
No. 05-05-01141-CR
Opinion Filed July 10, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F05-71306-WV. Affirm.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, FRANCIS, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Walter Williams, Jr. appeals his conviction for assault of a member of his family or household with a prior conviction for assault of a member of his family or household. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(2). The indictment also alleged appellant had two prior felony convictions. After the jury found appellant guilty, the trial court found the enhancement allegations true, and the court sentenced appellant to thirty-five years' imprisonment. Appellant brings one issue on appeal, asserting the trial court erred by threatening to put the complainant in jail if she did not testify against appellant. The State called the complainant to testify about appellant's assaulting her on February 5, 2005. The complainant was a reluctant witness. When she refused to answer the prosecutor's questions, the following occurred:
Q. Did you know for sure where Walter was?
A. This ain't right. This ain't right.
Q. [Complainant], I know you don't want to do it but we have to.
A. I don't have to if I don't want to.
Q. You do. But it will —
A. This is not right. This ain't right.
Q. Do you remember when you were talking with me upstairs earlier and we talked about it? That's all we have to talk about again.
A. I don't want to do this.
The Court: Well, ma'am, I understand you don't want to. The law requires you to.
* * *
[Jury removed from the courtroom]
The Court: Put him up for a second.
(Defendant taken from courtroom)
The Court: Put her up. Find her a cell back there.
The Witness: I have to go to jail?
[Prosecutor]: Judge —
The Bailiff: Judge said take you into custody, ma'am.
[Prosecutor]: If you don't testify, that's what's going to happen.
The Witness: Oh okay, bring Walter out.
[Prosecutor]: You're going to do it now?
The Witness: I'm ready.
The Court: Did you think I was kidding earlier?
The Witness: No. Okay, I'm ready.Appellant made no objection to these events. The jury returned to the courtroom, and the complainant testified about appellant beating her on February 5, 2005. On appeal, appellant argues the trial court's threatening the complainant with jail violated appellant's due process rights. Appellant argues the trial court should have "explained with appropriate specificity what the witness was being ordered to do and, more importantly, that the substance of her answers was not the issue." Appellant argues that the trial court's failure to instruct the complainant that the substance of her answers was not the issue deprived the complainant of "the free will to decide that she could, in fact, recant in front of the jury without incurring the wrath of the court and prosecutor, especially when both had just threatened her with jail." To preserve complaints about the trial court proceedings for appellate review, the appellant must have objected to the trial court's action or have requested the relief sought with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint or request, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context. Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). In this case, the grounds appellant argues on appeal were not apparent from the context. Appellant did not object to the trial court's threat to put the complainant in jail. Nor did appellant request the trial court to instruct the complainant that if she answered the prosecutor's questions, regardless of the substance of her answers, she would not be in contempt of court. Accordingly, appellant has not preserved any error for appellate review. See Hull v. State, 67 S.W.3d 215, 217 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (due process argument not preserved because no objection on due process ground). We overrule appellant's issue. We affirm the trial court's judgment.