In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

_________________________

No. 06-11-00262-CR

______________________________

JAVAROUS TYSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 102nd Judicial District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11F0262-102

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

At the jury trial on charges that Javarous Tyson, a felon, unlawfully possessed a firearm, 

the State was allowed, over Tyson’s objection, to introduce evidence that, at the time of Tyson’s 

arrest on this charge, he had on his person the sum of $2,500.00 in cash. From his conviction 

and sentence of ten years’ imprisonment, Tyson appeals, asserting error in the admission of that 

evidence. Tyson complains that this evidence “only served to provide a prejudicial conformity 

inference.” We affirm the trial court’s judgment because Tyson failed to preserve his appellate 

point with the trial court below. 

Officer Jeremy Courtney was on his way to question Tyson, in the process of searching 

for a fugitive who was reportedly in Tyson’s company. While en route to find Tyson, Courtney 

noticed Tyson driving a vehicle. Courtney followed Tyson to an apartment complex and stopped 

him as he stepped out of the vehicle. A weapon was found on the console of the vehicle, and 

Tyson, the sole occupant of the vehicle, was arrested. Tyson testified that the vehicle belonged 

to his girlfriend, that his girlfriend was driving the vehicle that day, that he was “on the porch” 

when Courtney “pulled up in the white crown vic,” and that the gun was not his. 

On direct examination, Tyson had admitted that he had been previously found in 

possession of cocaine. Then, during cross-examination, the following transpired:

Q. Do you recall the police officers releasing your personal items?

A. Yes. 

Q. Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what your 

personal items were?
3

[Defense Attorney]: Objection, Your Honor, relevance. 

THE COURT: Overruled. 

A. I think it was my necklace, my money and the keys that was in my 

pocket. 

Q. How much money?

A. I really don’t know.

Q. Would it be -- now, the police officers are still here.

A. Yes. 

Q. Let me help you. Would it be in the neighborhood of $2,500?

A. Probably so.

Q. Okay. 

Focusing on this portion of the transcript, Tyson’s appellate brief argues:

The sole issue for the jury to determine was whether Appellant possessed a 

firearm on the night in question. The State offered testimony through two police 

officers, while Appellant and his girlfriend testified in a consistent manner 

contrary to the officers. The playing field was unleveled when the trial court 

permitted the State to elicit how much cash Appellant had on him when he was 

arrested. Not only was the amount of cash irrelevant, but the State was able to 

couple the amount of cash with the specifics of Appellant’s prior, admitted felony 

conviction to create the prejudicial inference that Appellant must have possessed 

a weapon on the night in question. The introduction of the amount of cash was an 

abuse of discretion, and, based on the jury’s behavior during deliberations, the 

error was harmful.

Thus, Tyson’s appellate argument is more than the simple relevance issue raised at trial; it adds 

that the evidence had an improper prejudicial effect. See TEX. R. EVID. 403.
4

The State argues simple relevance: that Tyson’s “prior conviction for cocaine 

possession, in addition to the amount of cash, are both relevant pieces of evidence to establish 

the motive that he would be in possession of a firearm in order to protect his money, any drugs 

he was in possession of, and himself.” As to the simple relevancy issue raised at trial and here, 

we overrule the point of error.

Reasonable men may disagree whether in common experience a particular 

inference is available. Where there is room for such disagreement, an appellate 

court that reverses a trial court’s ruling on relevancy accomplishes nothing more 

than to substitute its own reasonable perception of common experience for that of 

the trial court. The appellate court effectively displaces the trial court, 

commandeering a function institutionally assigned elsewhere.

To avoid this anomaly, appellate courts uphold the trial court’s ruling on appeal 

absent an “abuse of discretion.” That is to say, as long as the trial court’s ruling 

was at least within the zone of reasonable disagreement, the appellate court will 

not intercede.

Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (op. on reh’g). It is at least 

reasonably arguable that possession of that amount of cash is relevant to the issue of possession 

of the firearm.

As to extending the issue into the asserted unfair prejudicial effect of the evidence, the 

issue was not preserved. In order to preserve a complaint for appellate review, a defendant must 

present to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the specific grounds for 

the desired ruling if they are not apparent from the context of the request, objection, or motion. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Morales v. State, 951 S.W.2d 59, 62 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi

1997, no pet.). “[A] party’s objection must inform the trial court why or on what basis the 

otherwise admissible evidence should be excluded.” Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530, 533 (Tex. 
5

Crim. App. 2009). For this reason, points of error on appeal must correspond or comport with 

objections and arguments made at trial. Wright v. State, 154 S.W.3d 235, 241 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2005, pet. ref’d) (citing Dixon v. State, 2 S.W.3d 263, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)). 

“Where a trial objection does not comport with the issue raised on appeal, the appellant has 

preserved nothing for review.” Id.; see TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1; Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 197 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

A defendant is required to object each time allegedly inadmissible evidence is offered. 

Clay v. State, 361 S.W.3d 762, 766 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.) (citing Ethington v. 

State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)); Long v. State, 10 S.W.3d 389, 399 (Tex. 

App.—Texarkana 2000, pet. ref’d). Even if a trial court’s admission of evidence is erroneous, it 

“will not require reversal when other such evidence was received without objection, either before 

or after the complained-of ruling.” Clay, 361 S.W.3d at 766 (citing Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 

713, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (Texas applies “futility rule,” meaning that despite trial court’s 

ruling that evidence is admissible, party must keep making “futile” objections on pain of 

waiver)). Here, trial counsel’s relevance objection with respect to Tyson’s personal items failed 

to preserve error as to the prejudicial effect of Tyson’s testimony of the amount of cash in his 

possession at the time of arrest.

As to any issues not related to Tyson’s plain relevance objection, the objection failed to 

preserve any error, such as an issue concerning “prejudicial inference” or “general character 

conformity,” which could be created by the introduction of the amount of cash. Motions for 
6

new trial filed in this case also failed to raise these issues. Thus, these complaints were not 

preserved.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: June 12, 2012

Date Decided: June 26, 2012

Do Not Publish