### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

444 444 444 444 444 444 ON REMAND

444 444 444 444 444 444 NO. 03-03-00158- CR

Ra c he lle L. H owe ll, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 7 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. 60168 8, HO NORAB LE WILLIAM E. BENDER, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A j ur y c on vic te d a

pp e lla nt R a c he lle L e e Ho we ll o f t he o ff e ns e of dr ivi ngwh ile intox icated ( DWI ) in 2003. SeeTex. P en. Code Ann. § 49.04 (West 2003). On a ppeal, a ppellant contends the c ourt made t he followingerr ors: (1) r efuse d to allow appellant to cr oss-examine the
ar r e s t i n g o f f i c e r w i t ha f i e l d s o b r i e t y t e s t m anu a l , ( 2 ) a l l o w e d t e s t i m o n y t o b e r e a d b a c k t o th e j u r y, and (3) denied appellant’ s motion for new trial based on the court’s f ailure to g rant he r cha lleng e for
c a us e a g a ins t a

jur or . I n a pri or op ini on , th is C ourt re ve rs e d th e jud g me nt o f t he tr ia l c ourt

a s to appellant’ s second issue, r emande d the cause to the trial court for further proce eding s, and did not
rea ch the r emainingissues. Ho we ll v. Sta te , 149 S.W .3d 686, 693 (Tex. A pp.—Austin 2004). The2

c ourt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls r e ve rs e d o ur

de c isi on on a pp e lla nt’ s sec on d issu e and

re mand e d th e c a

us e back to this Court w ith instructions to rea ch the f irst and third issues. Ho we ll v . S tate , 175 S.W .3d 786, 793 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Be cause we c onclude that the tr ial co urt’s re fusal to allow cr oss-examination with t he fi e ld s ob ri e ty te st manu a l w a s n ot h arm fu l and be c a us e a pp e lla nt d id n ot p ro pe rl y

pr e se rv e e rr or

wi th reg ard to the c halleng e for cause , we will af

firm the trial c ourt’s judg ment of convic tion.
F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND On Dece m b er 2 7 , 2001, at 12:45 a.m., Off icer Spradlin of the Austin Police Depa rtment stopped appe llant for spee ding. A ppellant t old Offic er Spra dlin she had consumed two or three drinks. Offic er Spra dlin administ ere d a ser ies of fie ld sobriety tests, inc luding the horizontal g aze ny stag mus test. Base d on those tests, he dete rmined that appe llant was intox icated a nd arr ested her. The field sobriety

tests were rec orded on a videotape, which was int roduce d into evidence at trial. At trial, the State ar g ued that appe llant was leg ally intox icated at the time of her arr est, as evidenc ed by

her pe rfor

mance on the field sobrie ty tests and h er breath test scor e of 0.113. Ap p e ll an t a

r g u e d th a t s h e h a d

p a s s e d mo s t o f the field s o b r ie ty

te s ts , th a t t

h e h o r iz o n ta l g a ze ny stag mus test had been a dminist ere d to o q u i ck l y t o be ac curate, and that he r bre ath test score , measure d more than one hour af t er her a rre st, was inconclusive of her intoxi cation at the time of
arr e st. Th e jur

y fo un d a pp e lla nt guil ty of DWI , a nd the tr ia l cou

rt se nte nc e d h e r t o 1 80 da y s in ja il and imposed a $2,000 f

ine, with the sentence suspended. The tria l court plac ed appe llant onAppellant also c ont en d s t h at the manual c onstitut es a le arne d treatise under the r ules of 1 evidenc e. See Te x. R. E vid . 8 03 (1 8) . F or the sake of

argume nt, we wi ll a ssume that th e fi e ld sobriety test manual qualifies a s a lear ned tre atise and that a prope r pre dicate ha d been la id reg arding its authority
. See id. 3 community

supervision for twe nty -four months. Appellant filed a mot ion for ne w trial, which the tr ia l c ourt de nie d. Ap pe lla

nt a pp e a ls the jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.

DI SCU SSIO N The Fie ld S obriety M anual

I n her f irst issue, appellant contends that the t rial court err ed in ref using to allow her to cross-e x amine Officer Spradlin with a field sobriety test manual because portions of the manua l
w e r e r e le v an t t o a

d e te r mi n a ti o no f w h e th e r O f

f ic e r Sp r a d li np r o p e r ly

p e r f o r me d th e h o r iz o n ta l g a ze ny stag mus test. See Tex. R. Evi d
. 401, 402. Duringcross-e x amination of Off icer Spradlin, 1 appellant ha

nded the of

fice r a c opy

of the U.S. De partment of T ransportation National Hig hway Tr a ff ic Sa fe ty Ad min istratio n (NH TSA ) D WIDe te c tio n and Sta nd ard ize d F ie ld S ob ri e ty Te st I nstructor Manual. Offic er Spra dlin admitted that the NHTSA manual wa s reliable a uthority , and appellant be g an questioning Offic er Spra dlin about the horizontal ga ze ny stagm u s t es t , using the manual as a refer ence and asking Office r S pradlin t o rea d from it. Acc ording to Office r Spradlin’s testimony , the horizontal g aze ny stag mus field sobriety test is a four- phase te st in which an off icer asks an individual to follow the movement of a stimul us such as a pen tip with her ey es, while the police off icer looks for an involuntary jerkingo f the ey eball, which is e x ag g erated by the use of alcohol or dr

ug s. Appellant que s t i o n ed Of fi cer Spradlin about the spee d at which the stimulus4

should be moved duringthe test. Offic er Spradlin indicated that, in his fie ld sobriety test training
c la ss, he wa s to ld t

hat a c omm on mis take in a dmi nis te ri ngthe te st i s mo vin g the sti mul us too qu ic kly
and that he wa s in str

uc te d to mov e the sti mul us slo wl y . Ap pe lla nt t he n q ue sti on e d O ff

ic e r S pr a dli n about his training reg ardingdiffer ent ty pes of ny stag mus not caused by alcohol use: Q. Yo u are a lso ta

ug ht a bo ut a va ri e ty of dif fe re nt t y pe s o f t hin g s th a t c ou ld c a

us e ny sta g mus in t

he c la ss, ri g ht? A. Yes, sir. Q. An d y ou are ta

ug ht that on e no n- a lc oh ol re late d ny sta g mus is o pto kin e tic ny sta g mus ; is that c or

re c t? A. Yes, sir. Q
. A n d th a tc ano c c u r

f r o mw a t c h i n g th i n g s t o o qu i c k l y , th a tm o v e t o o qu i c k l y ? At this point , the State objecte d to appellant’s line of questioning on r eleva

nce g ro un ds :
PROS ECUTI ON: Your H o n o r, we are ta lking a bout 47 kinds of ny stag mus. The optokinet i c i s a kind with flashinglights, which is not re levant. 47 diffe rent kinds of ny sta g m u s ar e n o t t h e k i n d o f n y s t a g mu s , an d i f w e w an t t o g e t i n t o th a t , this is c o mp l e t e l y i r

r e l e v an t ; i tw o u l d

b e c o n f u s i n g t o th e j ur

y.
I n response , appellant state d:
DEF ENSE: J udg e, the manual say s that optokinetic ny stag mus, the manual say s that a s long a s the sti mul us is mov e d s low ly and smo oth ly a c ro ss t he fi e ld o f v ie w, it w ill pr e ve nt o pto kin e tic ny sta g mus .5 The c ourt sustained the State’s obje ction an d i n structed the jur y to disreg ard
a pp e lla nt’ s q ue sti on re g ardi ng op tok ine tic ny sta g mus . App e lla nt t he n a sk e d O ff

ic e r S pr a dli n whether moving the stimulus too quickly would interfe re w ith a suspect’s pe rfor mance duringthe horizontal ga ze ny stag mus test. Office r Spradlin said that he did not know. Appellant aske d Offic er Spradlin to reaf

firm the author ity

of t h e NH T S A m anual a nd direc ted Off

icer Spradlin to read a po rt ion of the manu a l li sti nge xamp le s o f o pto kin e tic ny sta g mus . T he State ob je c te d:
PRO SEC UT I ON : O bje c tio n, Yo ur Ho no r. Yo u h ave a lr e a dy ru le d o n th is DEF ENSE: May

Ishow this to y ou, Your Honor ? T HE C OU R T : Im ad e m y ru l i n g. W h er e are y o ugo i n g? D E F E N S E : B e c a

u s e t h i s m anu a l s ays h e d i d th e t e s ti n c o r

r e c t l y – PROS ECUTI ON: That is not true. THE COURT: My

ruling is to move on to something else.
I n response , appellant a sked per mission to c r o ss-examine with a lear ned tre atise. The court then dismissed the jury and allowe d appellant to continue he r line of que stioning. With no j ury pr e se nt, a pp e lla nt d ir e c te d O ff

ic e r S pr a dli n to re a d p or

tio ns of the NH TSAmanu a l:
A. The e x amples of optokinetic ny stag mus include watc hing sc ener y while looking out the window of a

moving tra in or watching a rapidly spinning whee l that has a lte rn a tin g lig hts fl a sh ingon it. Q. Ok ay . It ju st s ay s th os e are e xamp le s o f o pto kin e tic ny sta g mus , r ig ht? A. Yes, sir. Q: I t do e sn ’t

sa y that’ s th e on ly

kin d o f o pto kin e tic ny sta g mus , c or re c t?6

A. Not in that para g raph, no, sir. Q. Now, re ad, if you would and in p ar t i cular, make sure it is l oud enoug h for the J udg e to hea

r what it say s here in this parag raph, r ight ther e. A. Poi nt o ut t

hat du ri ngho ri zon ta l ga ze ny sta g mus te sts , th e su bje c t is re qu ir e d to f o c u s t h e e ye o n a p e nl i g h to r p e n c i l o r

s i m i l ar o b j e c tt h a tm o v e s s l o w l y, relatively slowly acr oss the field of vi ew so that optokinetic ny stag mus will not occur .

. . . A. Th e hori zon ta l g a ze ny sta g mus te st w ill no t be inf lue nc e d b y

op tok ine tic n ys t a g m u s i f

a dm i n i s t e r e d

p r o p e r l y.
I n response , the State direc ted Off ice r S pradlin to rea d another para g raph f

rom the
manu a l de sc ri bin g op tok ine tic ny sta g mus :
A. Op tok ine tic ny sta g mus oc c ur s w he n th e e y e s fi xate on an ob je c t th a t su dd e nly mov e s out of sig ht or

wh e n th e e y e s w a tc h s ha

rp ly c on tr a sti ngmov ingima g e s.
Th e State the n a sse rt e d that op tok ine tic ny sta g mus , a s de sc ri be d in that pa ra g ra phin the manu a l, w a s ir

re le va nt t o O ff ic e r S pr a dli n’ s p e rf

or manc e of the ho ri zon ta l g a ze ny sta g mus te st:
PROS ECUTI ON: Your H onor, not moving a pen sl owly enoug h does not cause the ob je c t to mov e out of

the fi e ld of

sig ht a nd do e s n ot c a

us e the e y e to w a tc h s ha

rp ly contra sting im ag es, such a s a whe el spinning w ith black and white imag es. Such op tok ine tic ny sta g mus , d on e a s th is o ff ic e r d id i t, i s ir

re le va nt. Appellant ar g ued that the jury should make that dete rmination:
DEF ENSE: Your Honor, my reque st w ould be to let the jury make that de cision, and let th e p ro s ecutor

make that a

rgument and let the pr osecutor a dd this additional inf or matio n th a t sh e thi nk s and ke e ps on sa ying . B ut I

thi nk the j ur y ha s a ri g ht t o he ar t his and make the ir

ow n d e te rm inatio n. Th a t is my re qu e st.7 Th e State re sp on de d:
PRO SEC UT I ON : Judg e , if w e are g oin g to g o thro ug h th e e nti re manu a l and ta lk about all 47 kinds of ny stag mus a nd rea d selec tive passag es that question what the office r did and im ply that he was causing some other kind of ny stag mus, we will be here until nex t week.
The court sustained the State’s rele vance objection and, when the jury returne d, instructed the jury t o d i s re gar d

ap p el l an t ’s l as tl i n e o f q u es t i o n i n g. To be a dmissibl e, appe llant’s line of questioning reg ardingopt o k i n et i c ny stag mus must have been rele vant under Rules 401 and 402. See Tex. R. Evi d. 401, 402. Rule 401 defines rele vant evidenc e as “ evidenc e h avingany tendenc y to make the e x istence of any fac t that is of conseque nce to the det er m i n at i o n o f the a ction more proba ble or less proba

ble than it would be without the evidence .” Id. R. 4 01 . In ma kin g its re le va

nc y de te rm inatio n, the tr ial cou rt mu st deter mine whether

a re asonable person would be lieve that the pa rticu l ar p i ece of evide nce w as helpful in deter

mining the truth or fa lsity of any fac t that was of c onsequenc e to the lawsuit. See id. ; Kho sh ay an d v . S

tate , 179 S.W .3d 779, 784 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pe t.). Once the trial cour t de te rm ine s th a t th e e vid e nc e is re le va nt, it mus t loo k to ru le 40 2 to de te rm ine if the e vid e nc e sh ou ld be admitted. Te x . R. Evid. 402. Rul e 402 states that r eleva nt evidence is ge nera lly

admissible, except as provided by

the Constitut ion, statute, the rules of e vidence , or other r ules. Id. Evidence that is not relevant is inadmissible. Id. I f the trial c ourt beli ev es t h at a r easona ble per son might conclude that the evidenc e is rele vant, then it is bound to admit the evidence. Mo ntg om e ry v . S tate , 810 S.W .2d 372, 382 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).8 The st andard of re view for a trial c ourt’s admissibilit y decision is an abuse of discretion standa

rd. Po we ll v . S

tate , 6 3 S. W.3 d 4 35 , 4 38 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 01 ). In a pp lyingthi s standard, w e re vi ew t h e t ri al co u rt’s rulingin light of the r ecor d befor e the c ourt at the time the ruling was made , Khoshayand , 179 S.W .3d at 784, and will not disturb the ruling a bsent a showing in the rec ord t hat the trial c ourt abused its discre tion, Ra nk in v . S tate , 8 2 1 S. W. 2 d

2 3 0 ( T e x. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1991, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discr etion when it acts without ref ere nce t o an y guiding r ules or princ iples or ac ts in an arbitra ry or unre asonable manner . Mo ntgom e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 380. We w ill uphold the trial court’s ruling if the court e mploy ed the appropr iate ana ly sis, cf. id. , if the ruling is r easona bly supported by

the re cord a

nd is corre ct under any theory of l aw applicable to the c ase, Khoshayand , 1 79 S.W. 3d a t 78 4, and

if the ru lin g is w ith in the “zone of r easona

ble disag ree ment,” Po we ll , 63 S.W .3d at 438. I n h e r b ri e f, a

pp e lla nt c on te nd s th a t th e NH TSAmanu a l di sc us sio n o f o pto kin e tic ny s tag mus was re levant to her contention that Off

icer Spradlin had incorr ectly administered the horizontal ga ze ny stag mus test by moving the stimulus too quickly . I f the test wa s perf ormed incorre ctly , she ar g ues, then Of fice r Spradlin m ay

have e rrone ously

conclude d that appellant wa s int oxic a te d at th e tim e of

arr e st. We ag ree with appellant that the porti on of t he NHTSA manual reg ardingwhether optokinetic ny stag mus, which i s n o t ca u sed by alcohol consumption, may be ca used by watching quickly m o v i n g o b

j ec t s wa s re l ev an t
. T h e e x cl u d edp o rt i o n s o f t h e m an u al s p ec i fi ca l l y cau t i on about the po ssi bil ity

of c on fu sin g ho ri zon ta l g a ze ny sta g mus , w hic h is a sig n of into xicatio n, wi th op tok ine tic ny sta g mus . O ff ic e r S pr a dli n tes tif

ie d that he wa s tr a ine d to pe rf or m th e fi e ld s ob ri e ty9

tests acc ording to the standards set out in the N HTSA manual a nd that the manual wa s authoritative and re liable. Fur

ther, he testified that he wa s instructed to move the stimulus slowly when pe rf or min g the ho ri zon ta l g a ze ny sta g mus te st. Gi ve n th is, a pp e lla nt s ho uld have be e n a llo we d to question Offic er Spra dlin about h is administration of the field sobriety tests to her on the nig ht of he r a rr e st b a se d o n th e natio na l st and ard s la id o ut i n th e manu a l to de te rm ine if imp re c ise administration of the test led to a r esult mistakenly assessed a s horizontal gaze ny stag mus. Further , during cross-e x amination, appellant dire cted Of fice r Spradlin to calc ulate the minimum amount of tim e it wo uld take to c or re c tly a dmi nis te r a ll fo ur ph a se s of the ho ri zon ta l g a ze ny sta g mus t est. B e c a us e the tim e c od e on the vid e ota pe of a pp e lla nt pe rf or min g the te st s ho we d th a t O ff ic e r S pr a dli n took less time to adminis ter the e ntire test t han his minimum estimate, appellant contende d that the test had bee n done too quickly to be accur ate. A reasonable person mi g ht have c oncluded that the evidenc e wa s helpful in deter mining whe ther Of

fice r S p ra d l i n corr ectly

perf ormed the hor izont al g aze ny stag mus test and whether the r esults of the test indicated a ppellant was intoxi cate d. The trial
c ourt ’s de c isi on

to e xclu de the e vid e nc e wa s n ot b a se d o n a n a pp ro pr iate re le va

nc y ana ly sis and

wa s, there fore , arbitra

ry and an a buse of discr etion. Se e Mo ntg om e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 380. Having held that the trial court’s exclusion of a portion of the NHTSA manua l was
e rr or , we mus t ne xt a dd

re ss wh e the r that e rr or wa s ha rm fu l. Th e e xclu sio n of thi s ev id ence f a lls into th e c a te g o r

y o f n o n - c o n s ti tuti o n a l e rror . See W est v . S tate , 1 6 9 S. W. 3 d

2 7 5 , 2 7 9

- 8 0 ( T e x. Ap p. —F or

th Wo rt h 2 00 5, pe t. r e f’ d) (g e ne ra lly , e rr on eous a dmi ssi on or e xclu sio n o f e vid e nc e is non-constitutional error

if court’ s ruling me rely o ff en d s rules of e vidence ). Unde r Rule 44.2(b), appellate courts must disreg ard a non-constitutional error

unless the er

ror a ffe cts an a

p p el l an t ’sI n direc t examination, Officer Spradlin testifie d

th at duringthe third phase of the horizontal 2 g aze ny sta gm u s t es t , t h e off icer should move the stimulus “a whole lot slower” tha n in the prior phases of the test. In cross-e x amination, Offic er Spradlin stated that it is i mportant to move the sti m u l u s s l o w l y d

u r i n g p h a s e f

o u r o f t h e t e s t an d th a t h e w a s tr a i n e d t o m o v e th e s t i mu l us slo wl y duri ngph a se fo ur

of the te st. F ina lly , ju st b e fo re the e xclu de d e xch ang e regardi ng op tok ine tic ny sta g mus , O ff

ic e r Spr a dli n tes tif

ie d that dur ing tr a ini ng he wa s told it w a s a c omm on mis take to mov e the sti mul us too qu ic kly duri ngthe ho ri zon ta l g a ze ny sta g mus te st.

10 “substantial rig hts.” Tex. R. App. P. 44.2( b). “A substantial rig ht is affe cted whe n the er ror ha d a substantial and injurious effe ct or influenc e in deter mining the j u ry ’s ver dict.” Kin g v . S tate , 953 S
. W
. 2 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 7 ) ( ci t i n g Kotteakos v. United States , 32 8 U.S. 750, 776 (1946)) . I n making this determination, the re viewing court must examine the entire r ecor d. Bu rn e tt
v . S tate , 88 S.W .3d 633, 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Unde r rule 44.2( b), a c onviction should not be reve rsed whe n, afte r examining the r ecor d, “the r eviewingcourt ha s a fa ir assura nce that the err or did not influence the jury

or had but a sl ight effe ct.” Mc Do na ld v . S

tate , 1 7 9 S. W. 3 d

5 7 1 , 5 7 8 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2005).

The e x clusion of a port i o n of the NH TSA manual did not preve nt appellant fr om
ar gu i n g t h at t h e h o ri z o n t al gaz e n y s t agm u s t es tm ay h av e b ee n

ad m i n i s t er edi n ac cu ra t el y . Al th o u gh the tr ia l c ourt

ha lte d app ell ant’s c ro ss- e xami natio n o f O ff ic e r S pr a dli n w ithre g ard

to t he NH TSA
manu a l’ s d isc us sio n o f o pto kin e tic ny sta g mus and the pr op e r spe e d at w hic h to mov e the sti mul us , Offic er Spra dlin had previously testified t hree times that the stimul us should be moved slowly during t h e t est. Ba sed on these thr ee statements, Off icer Spradlin’s minimum time estimate, and the 2 vid e o ta p e e v id e n c e o f

th e f ie ld s o b r ie ty te s ts , a p p e ll an t w a s a

b le to ar g u e th a t O f

f ic e r Sp r a d lin’ s administration of the horizontal ga ze ny stag mus test was flawe d.I n her br ief, a ppellant asser

ts that the court’s refusa l to allow cross-e x amination of Off icer 3 Spr a dli n w iththe NH TSAmanu a l r ise s to the le ve l of c on sti tut ion a l e rr or un de r R ule 44 .2 (a ), a s a denial of he r Six th Amendment rig ht to cross-examination. See Tex. R. App. P
. 44.2(a)
. Howeve r, the record shows that appellant had ample opportunity to cross-e x amine Of

fice r Spradlin re g arding the spee d at wh i ch to move the stimulus during the horizontal ga ze ny stag mus test. Preventing appellant f

ro m d i re cting Offic er Spra dlin to read portions of the N HTSA manual de scribing optokinetic ny stag mus does not constitute a denial of the rig ht to cross-examine. 11 I n addition, Office r Spradlin testified that he pe rfor m ed three field sobriety tests on appellant in a ddition to the horizontal g aze ny stag mus te st and that she exhibited signs of intox ication during eac h test. Offic er Spradlin also testified t hat appellant told him she had c onsumed two or thre e drinks on the nig ht of her arr est. Although the breath test was per formed mor e than one hour af ter appellant wa s arr ested, the r esults showed she wa s well over the l ega l l i mit, with an alcohol
conce ntration of 0.113.

Given the testimony

reg ardingthe horizontal ga ze ny s t agm us test, the evidenc e
oncer ning a ppellant’s perfo rm an ce o f the other field sobriety

tests, the testimony

reg ardingthe number of dr inks the appellant ha d consumed, a nd the re sults of appellant’s bre ath test, we c onclude that the exclusion of the evidenc e in que stion did not aff ect a substantial rig ht of the appe llant. See Te x. R. A

pp . P. 44 .2 (b ); King , 95 3 S
. W
. 2 d at 271. After revie wing the entire rec ord, we are convince d that the exclusion did not influence the deter mination o f t h e jury

or had only

a slig ht
a ff e c t. 3 Having conclude d that the trial cour t’s exclusion of portions of the NHTSA manual was ha rmless under Rule 44.2( b), we overr ule appe llant’s first issue. See Tex. R. App. P . 44.2(b).After the trial, during a motion for new trial hea ring , appellant state d that duringHowe’ s 4 ind ivi du a l be nc h v oir

dir e , s he ha d int e nd e d to a g a in a sk Ho we wh e the r s he wo uld ho ld i t a g a ins t a pp e lla nt i f s he did

no t te sti fy

but th a t sh e wa s “ c ut o ff

” by the c ourt be fo re sh e c ou ld p ro c e e d w ith t h i s l i n e o f q u es t i o n i n g. 12 Cha lle nge for Ca use

I n h er t h i rd i s s u e, ap p el l an tco n t en d s th at th e t ri al co urt erre d i nd en yi n g h er

ch al l en ge for c ause of

potential juror T. How e. Duri ngthe ini tia l vo ir

dir e , a pp e lla nt a sk e d if the p ane l me mbe rs wo uld “ ho ld i t ag ainst her” if she did not testify during trial. Severa l ve nire members, including Howe, i n d icated that they would. Upon further questioning by appellant, four potential jurors ag ain stated that they would have a b i as aga inst the appellant if she did not take the stand. The tr ial court g rante d appellant’ s challeng es for ca u s e of the se four

individuals. During he r individual bench voir dir e, appellant did not ask How e if she w ould hold it aga inst appellant i f s h e d i d not testify , and af ter
sever al questions reg ardingan unre lated matter, the trial cour t halted appe llant’s questioning of Howe. After

war ds, on two occa sions, appellant challeng ed Howe for c ause, c iting Howe ’s ea rlier 4 ind ic a tion th a t sh e wo uld ho ld t he a pp e lla nt’ s si le nc e a g a ins t he r. Th e tr ia l c ourt de nie d b oth
c ha lle ng e s. Af

ter in div idu a l vo ir

dir e , a pp e lla nt r e qu e ste d tw o a dd iti on a l pe re mpt or y str ike s, statin g , “ Idis a g re e wi th t wo of the ind ivi du a ls, ” but did no t spe c if ic a lly ide nti fy the ob je c tio na ble jurors. The trial court denied appellant’ s reque st f or additional pere mptory

strikes. Appellant then
u s ed one of her pe remptory strikes to remove H owe f rom the jury

pool. After a

ppellant was
c on vic te d, sh e fi le d a

mot ion fo r n e w tri a l. A t th e he ari ngon the mot ion , a

pp e lla nt f or the fi rs t ti me13

named St anley Schnell as an objectionable juror whom she would have struck i f she had not used a pere mptory

strike to remove Howe. The c ourt of cr iminal appeals ha s outlined the steps that must be followed to preser ve
err or with respe ct to a trial c ourt’s denia l of a c halleng e for cause : [A] n appellant must: (1) a ssert a c lear and spec ific cha lleng e for cause ; (2) use a pere mptory

strike on the complaine d-of ve niremembe r; (3) e x haust his peremptory strikes; (4) re quest additional pere mptory strikes; (5) identify an objectionable jur or; and (6 ) claim t hat he would have struck the objectionable jur or with a pe remptory strike if he ha d one to use.
Al len v . S

tate , 10 8 S. W.3 d 2 81 , 2 82 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ). Th e c ourt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls explained that to preser

ve er ror, a ll six steps must be completed in t h e t ri al court. Id. at 282-83 (w a iti ngun til a

pp e llate br ie f to ide nti fy ob je c tio na ble jur or wh o wou ld h ave be e n s tr uc k is too late to preser ve er ror)
. Appellant did not complete a ll the steps ne cessa ry to preser

ve er ror. Dur ing voir

dire,
a pp e lla nt b ro a dly

state d th a t sh e dis a g re e d wi th tw o o f t he ind ivi du a ls o n th e jur

y lis t, b ut s he did not specifica lly

name Schne ll or any other individual until afte r the trial ha d ended. Similarly , it was not until t he hea

ring on her motion for ne w t ri al t h at ap p ellant claimed she would have r emoved Schnell if she had not use d a per emptory strike on H o we . W ai t ing until a motion for ne w trial hear i n g t o complete steps f ive and six does not properly prese rve e rror ; all six steps must be completed during the orig inal trial. See id. ; se e als o M or e no v . S

tate , 5 8 7 S. W. 2 d

4 0 5 , 4 0 8 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1979) (blanke t statement that “other jurors” on jury

list are objec tionable, without identifying who those jurors ar e, is not sufficient to pre serve err or); Cre dil le v . S tate , 925 S.W .2d14

112, 115-16 (Te x . App.—Houston [14t h Di s t
. ] 1996, pet. re f’d ) (jury selec tion error

cannot be prese rved in motion for ne w trial).

Be cause appellant did not complete all the steps nece ssary to preser ve er ror, he has waived this issue. See Tex. R. App. P . 33.1.
CO NC LU SION Havingoverr

uled appe llant’s issues on appea l, w e aff irm the judgme nt of

conviction.

David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: June 23, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh