C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS DO NA L D JOE GR

AV ES, Ap pe lla nt,

v. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee

. § § § § § § No

. 08 -0 7- 00 18 4- CR

Appea l from the County Criminal Court No. 3 of Tarr ant County , Texas (TC#1015404)

O P I N I O N This is an appea l f

rom a jury conviction for the offe nse of driving while intox icated. T he

c ourt a sse sse d p un ish me nt at tw o y e ars ’ c omm un ity su pe rv isi on , a

nd a fi ne of $7 00 . We a ff

ir m. I. SUMMAR

Y OF THE E VIDENCE Jo h n H ar r in g to n te s ti f

ie d th a t o n F e b r

u ar y 2 6 , 2 0 0 5 , h e w a s dr iv in g e a s t on Hig hway 121 in Tarr ant County , Texas when Appe llant’s truck bumped the rea r of his truck twic e. Ha

rring ton testified that he then f

ollowed Appellant a

nd he saw Appellant g o throug h a red light and stop in the intersec tion. When the l ight turned g ree n, Appellant turne d into a g as station, stopped in the parking lot, ex ited his truck, and wa lked behind the bui lding. Har ring ton thought Appe llant was intox icated and he c alled 911. After a while, Appe llant approa ched H arr ington’ s truck. Ha rring ton observed that Appellant was not ac ting nor

mally , so he stay ed in his truck, and did not roll down his window. Ha rrington noticed Appe llant look at the back of Har ring ton’s truck, a

nd then re turn to his own truck. Offic er O limpo Hernande z of the City of F ort Worth Pol ice De partment testified that on the same da y he wa s dispatched to investig ate a n acc ident at the gas station at B eac h Street and A irportFr eew ay . Offic er H erna ndez met w ith Appellant and obser ved that Appe llant had a strongodor of alcohol about him; his speec h was slurred and difficult to unde rstand; and his e y es we re bloodshot

and wate ry . App e llan t st ated that he ha d c on su me d s e ve ra l be e rs , a nd wa s ta kin g e ith e r p a in

me dic a tio n or mus c le re la xan t me dic ine . H e wa s una ble to r e a dil y

fo llo w t he of fi c e r’ s in str

uc tio ns . Offic er H erna

ndez tried to administer the horizontal ga ze ny stag mus test to Appellant, but during the cour se of the te st, Appellant fell over backw ard into the g as pumps. Offic er H erna ndez fea red that Appellant would ca

use himself injury , so he di s continued any further sobriety testing. H e

arres t ed Ap p ell ant. When Appellant’s truc k was inventorie d, three empty beer cans, a nd four unopened c ans of be er w ere found. All wer e cool to the touch. Appellant wa s transporte d to the j ail by Offic er Bre ndan Bag nell and taken to the intox ilyzer room. Off

icer Ba g nell observe d a strongodor of a n alcoholic be vera g e comingfrom Appe llant and that Ap pe lla

nt ha d slurr e d sp e e c h, un ste a dy ba lanc e , and ha d dif fi c ult y fo llo wi ng di rection s. Ap pe lla nt r e fu se d to take a

br e a th t e st a

nd re pe a te dly

a sk e d f or an a tto rn e y in re sp on se to r e qu e sts to submit to a bre ath test. Appellant wa s asked to count backw ards f rom eig hty -nine to six ty , and he re sp on de d, “ e ig hty -n ine , s ixty pe rc e nt.” W hen Ap pe lla nt w a s r e a d h is Miranda war nings, he inv ok e d h is r ig ht t o r e ma in s ile nt u nti l hi s atto rn e y

wa s p re se nt. II. DI SCU SSIO N I n I ssues One and Two, A ppellant contends that the court e rre d in overrulinghis objection to the DWI videotape be cause he had invoked hi s rig ht to counsel and his right to re main silent. The videotape ha d both audio and video footag e from the s cene at t he gas station and from the intox ilyzer

ro om at th e po lic e statio n. At the c on c lus ion

of vo ir dir e , App e lla

nt o bjected to t

he e nti re a

ud io p o rt i o no f t h e v i d eo t ap e, s t at i n g:

But a lso, Your Honor, at the t ime of the off eringof the a

udio tape, I ’m g oingto o bje c t

– I m e an o f t h e D W I t a p e , Y o u r H o n o r , I ’ m g o i n g t o o b j e c t t o t h e a ud io portions. We believe, Your Honor, that those are not admissible, Your Honor. He invoked his rig hts and, there fore , it shouldn’t be subm itted befor e the Court – I mean b e f o r e t h e j u r

y. The c ourt overr

uled the objec tion. When the porti on of t he tape depicting the eve nts at the g as station was off

ere d into evidence , Appellant made the following objection: We have the sa

me objections, Your Honor , we made previously to the video, and we also add that ther e’s been an improper predic ate not showing w ho operated the camera or how the camera was operated or if it was operated pr operly at the time, and we object for

all those rea sons, Your Honor. The c ourt overr

uled the objec tion and the tape was admitted into evidence . The a udio and

v i d e o p o rt i o n s o f

t h e t a p e s h o w i n g t h e e v e n t s a t

t h e g a s s t a t i o nw e r e p l aye d f o r t h e j u r y. L a te r i n th e tr ia l, d

ur ingthe te sti mony

of Of fi c e r B a g ne ll, the State re qu e ste d p e rm iss ion to publish the rest of the tape showing Appellant’s actions in the intox ilyzer room at the jail. At that time, the following exchang e occ urre d: STATE: Your Honor , permission to publish t h e remaining portion of the

videotape. COURT: Go ahe ad. DEF ENSE: We ren ew the objection, Your Honor , specific ally reg ardingthe inv oc a tio n o f r ig hts

. CO UR T: Th a t’ s a ll p art of the State ’s Exhi bit

No . 2 , is it n ot? DEF ENSE: No. STATE: I ’m sorry , Your Honor ? COURT: I s this st ill part of State’s Exhibi t No.2? STATE: This [ is] all part of the same orig inal video, y our Honor, y es, sir. I t’s

br ok e n up. P art o f i t i s t h e s t o p v i d e o , an d t h e r e m a i n i n g p artis wh a t’ s r e la te d to Of

fi c e r B a g ne ll i n th e int oxily zer ro om. COURT: The whole exhibi t was admitted into evidenc e ea rlier?DE F EN SE: Ev ide nc e , y e s.

. . .

C OU R T : W el l , It h o u gh t I h ea rd a di ff er en t o b j ec t i o n i s t h e r ea s o nI ’m as k i n g. DEF ENSE: No, I

made the same objec tion then, Your Honor, a bout the invocation of rig hts and the Court overr uled. COURT: Well, I ’ll overr ule y ou ag ain. DEF ENSE: Note our e x ception. The portion of the videotape show ing the events in t he int ox ily zer room at the jail was the n p u b l i s h e d t o t h e j u r y. During the playing of

the tape, the following exchang e took place : COURT: Do y ou have a n objection y ou want to – D E F E N S E : W e h a v e t h e s a m e o b j e c t i o n , Y o u r H o n o r , a s t o i n v o c a t i o n o f h is rig hts ag ain. COURT: Over

ruled. State ’s c ouns e l th e n a sk e d O ff ic e r B a g ne ll: STATE: J ust to be clea r, Off icer , there he’s a sking f

or a n at t orney . Does a

n ind ivi du a l th a t, a s I

sit – DEF ENSE: Objection, Your Honor. We’r e either

play the tape or

question the wi tne ss. COURT: Over

ruled. STATE: Does a

n individual, at t h i s s t age of the investig ation – do they have t h e r i g h tt o s p e a k

t o ana t t o r

n e y o r c o n s u l t w i t h an a t t o r n e y? WI TNESS: Not at that point, no, sir. DEF ENSE: Ag ain, Your Honor, this is a violation of Miranda v. Ar i z o n a a nd

Ed mun ds v. Ar izon a . H e ’s a sk e d f or c ouns e l. They ’r e a sk inghim wi tho ut p ro pe r w arn ing s, Yo ur Ho no r, to g ive e vid e nti ary ma tte rs in violation of the Un i t ed States Constitut ion, and we obje ct ver ystr on g ly a t th is p oin t. COURT: Over

rule the obje ction. T h e r e m a i n d e r

o f t h e v i d e o t a

p e w a s t h e np u

b l i s h e d t o t h e j u r y. I nitially , we must discuss Appellee ’s contention that Appellant has waived these two issues

on a pp e a l. I n o rd e r t o p re se rv e a

c omp la int

fo r a pp e llate review , on e mu st ra ise a tim e ly re qu e st, objection, or motion that states specif ic g rounds for the desired ruling if the y are not appar ent from the context of the reque st, objection, or motion. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 33 .1 (a )( 1) . T he ob je c tin g pa rt y must make the trial cour

t awar e of the specific i tem being objected to a s well as the spe cific le g al g round for

the objection. A g ener al or imprec ise objection may be sufficie nt to prese rve e rror for

a pp e a l, b ut o nly

if the le g a l ba sis fo r t

he ob je c tio n is ob vio us to the c ourt and to o pp os ingc ouns e l. Bu c ha na n v . S

tat e , 2 07 S.W. 3d

77 2, 77 5 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ). Whe n th e g ro un ds are no t sp e c if ic and the leg al basis is not obvious, the issue is not prese rved. Id. ; Al dr ic h v . S tat e , 104 S.W .3d 890, 89 4 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ). An ob je c tio n is su ff

ic ie nt i n p re se rv inge rr or

fo r a pp e llate re vie w i f i t

c omm un ic a te s to the tr ia l c ourt wh a t the ob je c tin g pa rt y wa nts , wh y the ob

je c tin g pa rt y him se lf is entitled to relief, a

nd it does so in a manner clea r enoug h for the cour

t to understand the c omplaint at a tim e when the court is in a posi tion to do something about the purporte d err or. See Lankston v

. State, 82 7 S. W.2 d 9 07 , 9 08 -0 9 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ). The com pl ain t r a ise d o n a pp e a l mu st comport wi t h the objection made at trial. Rezac v . State, 782 S.W .2d 869, 870 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). Whe n e vid e nc e c on ta ins bo th a dmi ssi ble and ina dmi ssi ble ma te ri a l, the ob jec tio n mu st

s pecif ically ref er to the material de emed objec tionable. See J ones v. State, 843 S.W .2d 487, 492 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992), reve rsed on other grounds , Maxwell v. State, 48 S.W .3d 196, 198 (T e x.Crim .App . 2 00 1) ; Ross v. State, 154 S.W .3d 804, 812-13 (Te x .App.–Houston [14th Dis t.]2004, pet. re f’d)

.

He re , the State c ite s Griffit h v. State, 55 S.W .3d 598, 602-08 (Te x .Crim.App. 2001) for the proposition that the portion of the videotape that shows Appellant’s r equests for a lawy er w hen he was be ing a sked to subm i t to the intox ilyzer test was a dmissibl e, as he had no rig ht to a lawy er at that time. Howeve r, the State c oncede s that the portion of the videota pe that shows Appellant wa s

re a d h is Miranda rig hts, and he re fuses to answe r questions until he can c onsult with a lawy er, w as inadmissible. See H

ardie v. State, 80 7 S. W.2 d 319 , 322 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ). Th e State c on te nd s, howeve r, that it was incumbent upon Appellant to point out the specific portion of the videotape that was inadmissible and it was inade quate to mer ely state that Appe llant had invoked his rig hts as an objection t o the entire videotape. We a g ree . The objec tion was not specific enoug h to apprise the court of the inadmissible portions of the tape. See R oss, 154 S.W .3d at 812-13. Howeve r, eve n if Appellant ha d prese rved err or, and w e assume e rror , we f ind that no harm

occur red. H aving assumed a c onstitut ional violation, s u ch an error r equire s reve rsal “unle ss the

c o u rt d e te r

mi n e s b e y o n d a r e a s o n a

b le d o u b t th a t th e e r

r o r d id n o t c o n tr ib u te to th e c o n v ic ti o nor punishment.” T EX .R.A PP . P. 4 4. 2( a ). I n makin g thi s de te rm inatio n, we do no t f oc us on the pr op ri e ty of the trial’ s outcome but on ca lculating , as near ly as possible, the proba ble impact of the err or on t h e j u ry i n light of the other e vidence

. W esb ro ok v . S tat e , 2 9 S. W. 3 d

1 0 3 , 1 1 9 ( T e x. Cr im.App. 20 00 ). I n o ther wo rds , the q ue sti on is n ot w he the r t

he le g a lly -a dmi tte d e vid e nc e is s uf fi c ie nt t o support the conviction. Mc Car thy v . S tat e , 65 S.W .3d 47, 55 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). I nstead, the question is whether the complained- of evide nce c ontributed to the jury ’s verdic t, r eg ardle ss of the sufficie ncy

of the evidenc e, independe nt of the complained- of evide nce, to sustain the c onviction. Id . Put another wa

y , the question is whether a reasonable probability exis ts that the err or moved the jury from a state of n o n p er s u as i on to one of pe rsuasion as to the issue in question. W esbrook , 29S.W .3d at 119.

I n thi s c a se , we fi nd the e rr or ha rm le ss be y on d a re a so na

ble do ub t. F ir st of a ll, and in s pit e of the a bsence of bre ath-a lcohol or blo o d -a l co h o l evidence due to Appellant’ s ref usal to provide them, there was ample evidence o f i n t o x ication. Appellant struc k another vehicle twic e on the fre ewa y . He then stoppe d partially in an int erse ction. He smelled of alcohol and admitted drinking alcohol and taking pa in killers or m uscle relaxers. His ey es we re bloodshot and watery , his speech

was s lu r r e d , an d h e h a d thr e e e mp ty b e e r c an s w h ic h w e r e c o o l to th e to u c h , an d f o u r f u ll c ans of beer in his car. He fell bac kwar ds during the sobriety testing, a

n d h e had diffic ulty

following direc tions both at the scene and in the intox ily zer room. During his opening statement, Appe llant’s counsel stated that Appellant was in some level of incapa city at t he scene. We are not convinced that the inadmissible portion of the videotape moved the jury from a state of nonper suasion to persuasion on whether

Appellant wa s intox icated. I ssues One a nd Two ar e over

ruled. I n I ssue Three , Appellant asser ts that the court err ed in de ny ing his motion for mistrial after the State c omm e nte d u

po n h is s ile nc e . A t tr ia l, d uring the dir e c t- e xami natio n o f O ff ic e r B a g ne ll, the following exchang e occ urre d: STATE: At any

point in ti me did h e s ay any thing to y ou – did he eve r say any thi ngto you

a t a ll? WI TN ESS: No t th a t I

re c a ll. DEF ENSE: Objection, Your Honor, unde r 38. 0 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedur e that’s c lear ly

an improper

question. STATE: Your Honor , the police of fice r said ther e wa s nothing e lse said. COURT: Sustain the objection. DEF ENSE: Ask for a

n instruction the jury

disreg ard that, y our Honor. COURT: J ury

will disreg ard the last statement of the pr osecutor.DEF ENSE: We move for mistrial, Your H onor.

COURT: Denied. The State maintains that Appe llant has fa i l ed t o prese rve this issue for r eview. We a g ree . Reviewing the statement of the wit ness from the j ury ’s s tandpoint, it is clea r that the c omment on Ap pe lla nt’ s sile nc e wa s a c omm e nt a bo ut t he inv e sti g a tiv e sta g e of

the e nc ounte r, pr ior

to t he tim e of his arr e st, and

no t a bo ut h is f a ilure to t e sti fy

a t tr ia l. Se e Sh or t v . S

tat e , 671 S.W .2d 888, 890-91 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 84 ); Cud dy v . S tat e , 107 S.W .3d 92, 96 (Tex.App.–Texarka n a 2003, no pet.) ; Gr e e nwo od

v . S tat e , 74 0 S.W. 2d 85 7, 85 9 (T e x.Ap p. –D a lla s 19 87 , no pet. ); Du ra nt v . S tat e , 688 S.W .2d 265, 266 (Tex.App.–For t Worth 1985, pet. re f’ d ). Whil e the r ight to re main silent after

arr e st a nd the ri g ht n ot t o s e lf

-i nc ri min a te a t tr ia l are de ri ve d f ro m th e same c on sti tut ion a l pr ov isi on s, the protec tions apply

in differ ent contexts, and an objection to one does not pre serve err or on appe al for the othe r. Gree nwood , 740 S.W .2d at 860. Fur thermore , even if

Appellant had pr eser

ved er ror, we find that the instruction to disreg ard

cure d any err or that may

have oc curr ed. Such an instruction is presumed to be eff ective a nd to cure

err or unless the fa cts of t he case sug g est the impossibil ity of withdraw ing the impression produce d

on the m inds of the jury

. See W aldo v. State, 746 S.W .2d 750, 754 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988). Here , the pr os e c uto r did no t dwe ll on the ma tte r, no me nti on of po st- arr e st sile nc e wa s mad e in a rgume nt, and the evidenc e prese nted ag ainst the Appellant was ove rwhe lming. We find the c ourt’s instruction to the jury

cure d any

err or that may

have oc curr ed. See id. I ssue Thre e is overr uled. III . C ON CL USI ON We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

GUADA L UPE RI VERA, J usticeJ uly

31, 2009 B e f o r e C h e w , C

. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. (Do Not Publish)