1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-19-00427-CR

________________

JACOB ERIC ARRINGTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 17-28049

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jacob Eric Arrington entered a plea of guilty to the murder of B.R.

1

 See Tex. 

Penal Code Ann. 19.02(b)(1). He elected to have a jury decide his punishment, and 

after a trial, the jury determined he should be sentenced to life in the Texas 

1 We refer to the victim by his initials to conceal his identity. See Tex. Const. 

art. I, § 30(a)(1) (granting crime victims “the right to be treated with fairness and 

with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice 

process[.]”).
2

Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. In two issues on appeal, 

Arrington challenges the trial court’s rulings on certain evidentiary issues. We 

affirm.

Background

Arrington contends the trial court erred when it sustained two of the State’s

hearsay objections: (1) when the question did not require a hearsay response; and (2) 

when the testimony was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Arrington 

contends he was harmed when the testimony he sought to elicit was not presented to 

the jury because of the trial court’s error.

Arrington complains of the trial court’s ruling to the following discussion that

occurred during the punishment trial between a defense witness and defense counsel. 

[Defense Counsel:] [Witness], was [B.R.] kind of shunned by the rest 

of the group?

[Witness:] Yes.

[Defense Counsel:] Before, when you first started hanging out, he hung 

out with you-all, correct?

[Witness:] Yes.

[Defense Counsel:] But at some point, they didn’t want him around 

anymore, did they?

[Witness:] Yes.

[Defense Counsel:] Did you have a conversation with one of [B.R.’s]

nieces?
3

[Witness:] Yes.

[Defense Counsel:] After you had a conversation with the niece, did 

you believe that [B.R.] had been messing with his nieces?

[The State:] Objection. This is based on hearsay again, Your Honor.

[The Court:] Is it not? Isn’t it?

[Defense Counsel:] It’s her personal –

[The Court:] Based upon hearsay.

[Defense Counsel:] And things she observed.

[The Court:] That’s not the question you just asked, sir. Your objection 

is sustained. The jury is instructed to disregard the last statement.

Later, the following exchange occurred when Arrington took the stand regarding a 

conversation he had with the victim. Arrington testified that he believed that the 

victim was molesting his underage nieces and was trying to take sexual pictures of 

them. 

[Defense Counsel:] How did he respond? Did you confront him about 

this?

[Arrington:] Yeah, because we were getting high and that stuff makes 

you want to talk, connect; and this is my friend for a long time.

[Defense Counsel:] How did he respond when you confronted him?

[Arrington:] Like it was okay. Like it was just cool.

[Defense Counsel:] It was cool for him to take pictures –
4

[Arrington:] Yeah. Yeah, like it was cool. I guess because I didn’t say 

anything to him at first. I was like what the -- you know, and I was high. 

I didn’t know how to bring it up right then. I guess since I didn’t say 

anything at first, he just thought it was cool.

[Defense Counsel:] Over the course of time, did you have conversations 

with [B.R.] about this?

[Arrington:] A couple, yeah.

[Defense Counsel:] And how did he act about having relations with his 

nieces?

[Arrington:] He reveled there. He thought it was just cool.

[Defense Counsel:] Did he brag about it?

[Arrington:] Yeah, he always talked about how pretty she is and et 

cetera, et cetera. It’s just -- yeah.

[Defense Counsel:] Did he ever admit to you that he was molesting 

them?

[Arrington:] Yeah. He had actually told me –

[The State:] Objection, hearsay. If he’s going to go into anything that 

the dead person said, that’s inappropriate.

[The Court:] Sustained.

On appeal, Arrington argues the trial court erred when it sustained the 

objection to his witnesses’ testimony because the testimony was not hearsay and was 

not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Arrington compared this testimony 

to a police officer explaining how a defendant became a suspect rather than for the 

truth of the matter asserted. Arrington complains that the excluded testimony from 
5

his witnesses was important because it “added credibility to [his] own claim as to 

the victim in this case being a reputed child molester.” Furthermore, Arrington 

contends that the trial court erred when it sustained the State’s hearsay objection 

because the testimony falls under a hearsay exception, Statements Against Interest 

under Texas Rule of Evidence 803(24). Arrington contends his own testimony was 

important because it allowed the “jury [to] hear the motive...and consider his 

demeanor and tone when offering this evidence to make a full and educated decision

in this case.”

Analysis

On appeal, Arrington argues that he was not offering the witness’s testimony

for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to explain his belief that the victim was 

a child molester. He essentially contends the statement does not constitute hearsay. 

See Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 801(d) (defining hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered 

to prove the truth of the matter asserted). He contends the trial court’s failure to 

admit the evidence harmed his credibility. However, Arrington failed to articulate to 

the trial court that the testimony was not being offered for the truth of the matter 

asserted or that the Confrontation Clause formed a basis for its admission.

The second ruling Arrington complains of involved the exclusion of a portion 

of his testimony regarding the victim’s admissions to him. In response to the State’s 

hearsay objection, he again failed to argue for the evidence’s admissibility as an 
6

exception to the hearsay rule and specifically as a statement against interest by the 

declarant. See Tex. R. Evid. 803(24) (listing a declarant’s statement against interest 

as an exception to the general rule that hearsay is inadmissible).

Failure to present a particular argument to the trial court in support of the 

admission of excluded evidence waives that argument for appeal. See Reyna v. State, 

168 S.W.3d 173, 176–79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Rodriguez v. State, 749 S.W.2d 

576, 578 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1988, pet. ref’d) (noting that a defendant is 

required to object when the trial court excludes testimony of its witness). Here, given 

Arrington’s failure to provide an articulable basis in the trial court for the admission 

of this evidence, he has failed to preserve these complaints. See Reyna, 168 S.W.3d 

at 177 (explaining “it is not enough to tell the judge that evidence is admissible[,]” 

instead the proponent “must have told the judge why that evidence was 

admissible[]”). When complaints of error are not preserved by objection or other 

means of preserving error, the error is considered to have been waived unless it is 

fundamental, meaning that the error creates egregious harm. See Villareal v. State, 

116 S.W.3d 74, 85 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.); see also 

Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh’g). 

Egregious harm is such harm that a defendant is deprived of a fair and impartial trial.

Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171.
7

Even assuming without deciding the trial court erred when it sustained the 

State’s hearsay objections, upon review of the record for fundamental error, we 

conclude the comment and rulings at issue did not affect Arrington’s substantial 

rights. “Erroneous evidentiary rulings rarely rise to the level of denying the 

fundamental constitutional rights to present a meaningful defense.” Potier v. State, 

68 S.W.3d 657, 663 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (citation omitted). Here, similar

testimony to Arrington claims was wrongfully excluded and was admitted elsewhere 

without objection from the State. Arrington testified to the victim’s purported 

molestation of minor children. Arrington has not demonstrated that the trial court’s 

exclusion of the testimony from his witness or his testimony was fundamental error 

or that he was deprived of a fair trial. Appellant’s issues are overruled. 

Conclusion

Having overruled all of Arrington’s issues, we affirm the judgment of the trial 

court. 

AFFIRMED.

 ________________________________

 CHARLES KREGER 

 Justice

 

Submitted on April 13, 2021

Opinion Delivered November 24, 2021

Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.