### NUM BER 13-09- 0019 3-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
JEF FR Y H ERZ OG A

/K/A JE FF H ERZ OG, A pp ellan t,

v. TH E ST A

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 21 4t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d G arza Memoran du m Op inio n by C hie f J us tice Vald ez A j ur y co nv ic ted a ppella n t, J e f fry H erz og a/k

/a J eff H erz og , of the off ense of int ox ic ati on manslau g hter , a sec ond- deg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 49.08 (V er non Su pp. 2 009)

. The jur y ass ess ed puni shment at ele v en y ear s’ impr is onment i n the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce and i mposed a $10, 000B e c a u s e th i s i s a m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n a n d th e p a rti e s a re fa m i l i a r w i th th e fa c ts , w e w i l l n o t re c i te 1 th e m h e re e x c e p t a s n e c e s s a ry t o a d v i s e th e p a rti e s o f th e C o u rt’ s d e c i s i o n a n d th e b a s i c re a s o n s fo r i t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 4. 2 fine. By thr ee i ss ues, H erz og contends thatthe pr osec utor eng ag ed i n mi sc onduc t dur ing th e pu ni s hm en t ph as e of t r i al

. W e affi r m. 1 I. A PPLI C A B LE L AW On ap peal , H erz og ’s co mplai nts ce nter on t he prosec utor ’s con d u ct dur ing the puni shmentphas e of tr ial

. W e r ev iew al leg ati ons of pros ecut or ial mis condu ct on a
cas e- by -c ase basi s. S ta h l v . Sta te , 7 4 9 S. W .2d 8 26, 8 30 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1988)

. The
re v iew i s n ot l imi ted t o onl y

the facts of each c ase, but al so t h e p ro b a ble eff ecton t he juror s’ m in d s. Hod

ge v . St ate , 48 8 S. W .2 d 77 9, 7 81
- 82 ( Tex

. C r i m. A pp
. 19 73 )

. To prese rv e error in cases of prosecu torial misco ndu ct, the def end ant must (1) make a tim ely and s peci fic o bje ction , (2 ) r eq uestan i nst ru cti on th at t he j ur y di sr eg ar d the matte r impr oper ly

placed before it , and ( 3) mov e for a mi str ial

. Coc kr ell v. Sta te , 933 S.W .2d 7 3, 89 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1996)

. “The ess enti al re q uir ement i s a ti mely , spec ific re q uest that the trial court ref uses. ” Young v. State , 1 3 7 S .W .3 d 6 5 , 6 9 ( T e x. Crim

. Ap p
. 2 0 0 4 ) (ci ti n g T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33 .1(a)). II. A N AL Y S IS By hi s f irst and seco nd iss ues, Herz og contends that the tri al cour t er re d i n not sua sponte d eclaring a m istrial du ring the State ’s closing argume nt at the pu nishm ent pha se of t ri al. Spec ific all y , Her z og ass erts that the S tate eng ag ed i n i mprop er j ur y ar g ument by “a sk [i ng ] t he members o f t h e j u ry t o pl ace themse lv es in the s hoes of the v ic ti m” and
re pr esent ing i tse lf as the v ic ti m’s att or ney
. Dur ing i ts cl osi ng sta tement, the S tate ar g ued:

And s o w hen y ou s itand y ou pond er t h is cas e, I w ant y ou to put3

y our sel f in [ the v ic ti m’s mother ’s ] s hoes at 5: 00 o’ cl ock i n the morni ng tr

y ing to figu re o u t w her e y our baby i s, hear ing thatso mehow sh e’s been in an acc ide nt. Y ou c an’ t fig ur e i t out

. And be caus e i t’ s a ppr opr iat e at thi s t ime[ ,] I’m going to tell y ou some thing. T here ’s anger in this room , anger beca use the S tate has an obl ig ati on to r epr esenther v ic ti ms z eal ousl y , t he s ame r ig ht a defendant has to ha v e hi s c ase re pr esent ed z eal ousl y . The Stat e of Tex as t h ro u gh h e r D is t ri c tA t t o rn e y’s o f f ic e re p re s e n t s a ll o f

h e r vi c t im s ze a lo u s ly. In mo st c irc u m sta nces , a par ty r ais ing a c omplai nt on appeal musthav e made a timely and spec ificobj ect ion i n the tr ial co urt and the cour t mus t hav e r ule d on the obj ect ion

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1( a) ; Me ndez v. Sta te , 13 8 S. W .3 d 33 4, 3 41 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2004)

. “ Ex ceptfor c omplai nts i nv olv ing sy ste mic( or abs olu te) r eq uir ements , or r ig hts that ar e w aiv abl e onl y , . . . al l other co mp la in ts , whether

co nst it uti onal , s tatut or y , or oth erw ise, are f orf eited byf ailure to co mp ly w ith [r]ule 3 3.1 (a).” Me ndez , 138 S.W .3d a t 342. H erz og v oic ed no obj ect ion to the abov e sta tements and fails to ci te an y auth or it y

to supp ort his cont ent ion t hat the trial court ha d an abso lute d uty to declare a m istrial. Acc or din g ly , w e re

jec t Her z og ’s ar g ument that the t ri al cour t had a du ty

to tak e ac ti on by decla ring a mistrial sua sponte
. See i d. Beca use Her

z og did not make a ti mely obj ect ion to the pr osec utor ’s sta tements , er ro r by the Stat e, i f any , w as not p re ser v ed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 3 3

. 1 ( a ); Penr

y v . St ate , 903 S.W .2d 715 , 764 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95) (en ba nc) (p er cu ri am) (c oncl udi ng that a pr osec utor ial mis condu ct compl ain t w as not p re ser v ed for
re v iew due to appel lan t’ s failu re to obj ect at the ear li est poss ibl e moment) ; see als o Loz ano
v. State , N o. 13 -0 8- 00180- CR , 201 0 W L 41175 3, at*1 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti F eb. 4 , 201 0, no pet .) (mem

. op. , not designat ed f or pub lication) (sam e). W e overrule Herz og’s f irst and seco nd issue s. By hi s t hird i ss ue, Her

z og cont ends that the pr osec utor eng ag ed i n mi sc onduc t by “ask[ing] the jury to sp e c u la t e o n the ex istence of facts ou tside th e record. ” During his4

cl osi ng ar g ument atthe puni shmentphas e of tr ial , defense co unsel st ated: Bu t th e fi r s t th i ng I w an t to bring up i s J eff H er z og
. Th er e w as s om e dis cus si on c oncer nin g hi s c ri minal hi sto ry , s ome di sc uss ion w hic h w as ki nd of allude d to. He had a DW I charge in San P atricio Coun ty eight or so y ears ag o tha t w as dis mis sed for i nsuf f ici e n t e v ide nce. N ow , t her e’s a r eason cas es ar e di smi ss ed for ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce, and that’ s b ecaus e the ev ide nce is i nsuffici ent. So ple ase keep that in mind. D o notbe mi sl ed by that. H e al so had an ev adi ng ch ar g e tha t w as tr ied by a j u ry, a nd I know becau se I w as the l aw y er
. He w as acq uit ted b y a j ur y of t hat charg e, found not g uil ty

. So don ’tbe mi sl ed by any of that, pl ease. Now , he’ s fil led out an applicatio n for pr obati on. He’ s n ev er had a felony co nv ic ti on. And I sa y

thatto y ou j ustsi mply bec ause I w ant y ou to u n d e rs t a n d t h e wh o le st o ry. Dur ing i ts cl osi ng ar g ument, the S tate re spond ed to Herz og ’s arg ument that h e had
nev er been conv ic ted of a felony

. Her z og as ser

ts that the S tate’ s r espon se w as improper
a n d p o in t s u s t o t h e fo ll o win g a rg u m e n ta n d co ll o qu y: [The St ate]:

. . . The ra ng e of puni shment is w hat it is in t h is st ate.

It ’s a nyw her e from pr obati on, tw o to 20 y ear s, a $10,000 fine. And I don ’tkn ow w hat mot ion that Def ense Coun sel talked abo ut, but there’s no e v iden ce bef ore you that he’s never been convicted of a f elon y in the s tate of Tex as. The re wa s his tes ti mony thathe h a d n e ve r b e e n a rr e s t e d o r p u ti n j a il , b u tt h a tgo tb lo wn out of the water. [D efense C ounse l] : Cou ld w e approach, Ju dg e? The Co urt: The ju ry hear d the ev ide nce. N o. Si t dow n. [Def ense Counse l]: Your Honor— The Co urt: The ju ry —don’ t. [ De f e n s e Co u n s e l] : He h a s n e ve r b e e n co n vic t e d o f a f e lo n y— The Co urt: I s aid si t dow n.5

[Def ense Counse l]: —ever. The Co urt: Ask the jur y out, pl ease. T h e B a il if

f : A ll ri s e fo r t h e ju ry. The Co urt: Get up her e. [D efense C ounse l] : Sor ry , J udg e. The Co urt: Be q uie t. (J ur y ex it s c our

tr oom.) The C ou rt: Yo u k no w be tt er th at on c e I said th at’s en ough, sit

dow n , y ou don’ t t alk

any more. Y ou k now

w hat t o do af ter tha t. Y ou d o tha t one more tim e , I will put you in jail. Do I make m y self

clear? [D efense C ounse l] : I und er sta nd th at, Judg e. On ap peal , H erz og co ntends that“ [t] he c lea r impl ic ati on of thi s arg ument w as that [the Stat e] w anted the jur y to spec ula te and cons ide r that defendant had been c onv ic ted of a felony

i n the p a st .” H ow ev er , as pr ev iou sl y st ated, i n or der

to ra is e a c omplai nt on app eal, a party mu st ma ke a tim ely and specif ic objectio n in the trial c o u rt a nd th e cou rt must ru le o n the obj ect ion

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1( a) ; Me ndez , 138 S.W .3d a t 341

. W hen the St ate engaged in the a lleged misco ndu ct, def ense coun sel asked to app roach the b ench; how ev er , he faile d to sta te an o bje ct io n upon w hic h the tr ial co urt c oul d r ule

. Accordin gly , w e can not conclud e tha t the abo v e inte rjec t io n bydef ense coun sel is suffici ent t o pr eser

v e error
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a) ; see als o F owler v. Sta te , 863 S.W .2d 187 , 189 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [ 1 4 t h Dist.] 1993 , w rit r ef ’d) (holding that d ef ense
coun se l’s r eq uestto “a ppr oach the b ench” di d notco nst it ute a n obj ect ion su ff ic ien t t o6

pr eser v e c omplai nt on appeal ). W e ov er ru le Her z og ’s thi rd i ss ue. III . C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of Her z og ’s i ss ues on appe al, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________ _________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Del iv er ed and filed the 5th d ay of Aug ust , 201 0.