i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 28 8- CR Willi a m MATTHEWS , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the County

Court at L aw No. 4, Be x ar County , Texas Trial Court No. 986186 Honora ble Claude D. Da

vis, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: April 15, 2009 AFF I RMED Wil liam Matthews appe als his conviction for possession of ma rihuana , arguing that: (1) the evidenc e is leg ally

and fa ctually

insufficient to support his conviction; (2) he was de nied ef fec tive assistance of counse l; (3) comments by the t rial j udg e denied him of a fair trial; and ( 4) the trial c ourt abused its discre tion in allowing a police office r to state a le g al conc lusion. W e af firm the trial
c ourt ’s jud g me nt.04

- 08

- 00 28 8- CR

- 2- B ACKG ROUND At ab o u t 9 : 3 0 p.m. on October 21, 2006, San Antonio Poli ce O ffice r John Herrer a wa s patrolling a hig h crime a

rea known for drug traff

icking
. As he was driving northbound, he obser ved Matthews walk around the corne r ahea d of him a nd proce ed south towa

rd the patr o l ca r. Of

fi cer Her rer a pulled his patrol ca

r over and st opped withi n 18 inches of the curb along which Matthew s
was wa lking. Her

rer a rolled down hi s front passeng er window, and aske d Matthews his name. The office r turned to ty

pe the name into his computer to chec k for outstandi n g wa rr an t s , and whe n he looked bac k toward Matthews he notice d he wa s no longe r vi sible throug h the passeng er w indow. Con c e rn e d fo r his ow n sa fe ty , Of fi c e r H e rr e ra

pr omp tly e xite d a nd wa lke d a ro un d th e ba c k o f h is vehicle, a nd saw that Matthew s was sitting on the c urb. The of fice r ins t ructe d Matthews to stand up and wa lk toward him at the ba ck of the vehicle; the office r then c onducted a pat-down se arc h of Matthews’ pe rson, which r evea led nothing but a pack of cig are ttes. After

asking Matthews a f

ew more que stions about why he wa s in t h e area

and who he was visiting, Of fice r He rre ra a llowed Matthews to le a v e ; M a tt

h e w s c o n ti n u e d w a lk in g s o u th to w ar d a b u s s to p a p p r o xim a te ly 3 0 0 fee t
awa y . His suspicions having been raised because Matthews had “ducke d down out of view,” Offic er Her rer a turne d on his flashlight a nd beg an sea

rching the are a whe re Matthews had be en sitting; he discovere d three bag g ies of m arihua na underneath his patrol car, about two f eet be hind the passeng er tire, “r ight whe re Matthews had sat down.” The office r approa ched Matthews at the bus stop and
arr ested him. A jury

found Matthews guilty

of possessing less than two ounce s of marihua na, and he wa s se nte nc e d to six mo nth s’ c on fi ne me nt, wh ic h w a s su sp e nd e d a nd pr ob a te d f

or six mo nth s. Matthews timely

appea led.04

- 08

- 00 28 8- CR

- 3- A N A L Y SIS Legal and Factual I

nsu fficie ncy I n h is f ir st and se c on d is su e s, Matth e ws argue s th a t th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly insufficient to support the jury ’s findi ng that he possessed the marihuana . When conducting a leg al
su ff ic ie nc y re vie w, we e va luat e a ll the e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to t he ve rd ic t to de t e r m i n e w h e t h e r

an y r a t i o n a l t r i e r

o f f a c tc o u l d h a v e f o u n d t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s o f t h e c ri me bey ond a re asonable doubt. Ev an s v . S tat e , 202 S.W .3d 158 , 1 6 1 (T ex. C rim. App. 2006); Po ind e x te r v . S tat e , 153 S.W .3d 402, 405 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The jury , as t he sole fa ct-finde r, i s t h e e x c l u s i v e j u d g e o f th e w i t n e s s e s ’ c r e d i b i l i t y an d t h e w e i g h t t o b e g i v e nt h e i r t e s t i m o n y. Poindexte r , 153 S.W .3d at 406. The jury is permitted to make re asonable infere nces ba sed on the evidenc e pre sented. Mo sle yv . S tat e , 983 S.W .2d 249, 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). I n evaluating factua l sufficie ncy , we view all the evidence in a neutral light and set aside the jury ’s ver dict only

if the evide nce suppor

ting it is so weak a s to r ender the ver dict clea

rly wrongor manifestly

unjust. Lan c on v . S

tat e , 253 S.W .3d 699, 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). The evide nce
may be f a c t u a lly ins uf fi c ie nt b e c a

us e the e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the ve rd ic t, a lth ou g h le g a lly su ff ic ie nt, is t oo we a k to su

pp or t it , o r b e c a

us e , w he n c on sid e ri ngthe c on tr ary e vid e nc e , the ve rd ic t is a g a ins t the g reat w eig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e. Id. I n conductinga fa ctual suff iciency revie w, we “ must be cog nizant of the fac t t h at a j u ry has alre ady

passed on the f

acts a nd must give due defe renc e” to their

deter minations, so as to avoid s ubstitut ing our judgme nt for that of the jury
. Id. at 704-05; se e als o Cl e wis v . S tat e , 922 S.W .2d 126, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). To obtain a c onviction for possession of mar ihuana, the State must prove that the def endant knowing ly

or intentionally

possessed a usa

ble quantity

of m arihua

na. T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE04

- 08

- 00 28 8- CR

- 4- ANN . § 481.121(a) (Ve rnon 2003). “Possession” means that the de fenda nt exercised ac tual car e, custody , control, or mana g ement of the controlled substanc e. T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 4 81 .0 02 (3 8) (V e rn on Sup p. 20 08 ). Th e de fe nd ant’ s pre se nc e a t th e loc a tio n w he re c on tr a ba nd is found is not, by itself, sufficie nt to establish actua l c are , custody or control of

the drug s. Evans , 202 S.W .3d at 162. Whether the e vidence is direct or c ircumstantial, the State must prove that the
acc used’s c onnection with the contr aband w as more tha n just fortuitous. Id. at 1 6 1
. W h en the defe ndant did not have e x clusive control ove r the c ontraba nd, or the plac e where the contraba nd was fo un d, the State mus t pr e se nt e vid e nc e of ind e pe nd e nt f

a c ts a nd c ir c ums tanc e s w hic h a ff

ir ma tiv e ly li n k th e a c c u s e d

to th e c o n tr a

b an d
. Id. at 1 6 2 & n.12 (listing non-e x clusive fa ctors that ar e
c on sid e re d a ff

ir ma tiv e lin ks ); se e als o Hargrove v . S tat e , 211 S.W .3d 379, 385-86 (Te x . App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. ref

’d), c e r t. d

e n ied , 128 S. Ct . 134 (2007). The number of links is not as important as the log ical for ce of all the evidenc e, including the def endant’ s prese nce and any aff irmative links, in establishing the e lements of the of fense
. Evans , 202 S.W .3d at 162. Matthews conte nds the evidenc e is both lega lly and fa ctually

insufficient to support a f

inding bey ond a re asonable doubt that he possessed the marihuana
. We disa g ree . Whil e the mar ihuana wa s
no t di sc ov e re d o n Matth e ws ’ pe rs on , bu t on a pu bli c str e e t a ft e r t

he of fi c e r i nit ia te d a

fi e ld c on ta c t, the State pre sented e vidence of circ umstances demonstrating Matthews’ know ledg e and c ontrol of the mari hu ana . Sp e c if

ic a lly , th e re wa s e vid e nc e that Matth e ws wa s w a lki ng a t ni g ht i n a n a re a we ll known for dr

ug usag e and sales, par

ticularly marihuana

and her oin; after be ing stoppe d and g iving his name, Matthews “ducke d down” out of the office r’s fie ld of vision; im mediately afte r per mitti ng Mat th e w s to le a v e , th e o f f ic e r u s e d h is f

la s h li g h t to s e ar c h th e g r o u n d an d f o u n d three bag g ies of
ma ri h u an a u n d e r

n e a t h t h e p a t r o l c ar , a

b o u t t w o f

e e t b e h i n d t h e f

r o n t p a s s e n g e r t i r e , w i t h i n c los e04

- 08

- 00 28 8- CR

- 5- proxi mity to where Matthews wa s sitti ng on the cur b; the office r t estified that he did not see a ny thing on the g round or in the stre et bef ore he stopped Matthews, a nd it wa s not probable that the bag g ies
wer e alr eady

there and his ti re d rove ove r them; and the a rea wher e he stoppe d Matthews had a n overhe ad lig ht. Furthe r, the off icer testified the entire encounte r lasted only “a couple of minutes,”
and no on e e lse wa s in

the imm e diate are a a t the tim e . I n a dd iti on , the of fi c e r te sti fi e d th a t he c ou ld have arr e ste d M a tth e ws fo r p os se ssi ngthe pa c k of c ig are tte s be c a us e he wa s 1 7 y e ars old , b ut “ in h i s d i s c r e t i o n ” h e c h o s e t o l e tM a t t h e w s g o o nh i s w ay. Matthews ar g ues there are “over whelming fac ts tending to disprove” his possession of the
mari hu ana , in c lud ingthe fo llo wi ng : th e mari hu a na wa s f ound a ft e r h e le ft

the are a ; the of

fi c e r d id not actually see him dispose of t he marihuana; he did not attempt t o flee or ac t nervous; he wa s not
un de r t he inf lue nc e of any na rc oti c s; an d th e of

fi c e r’ s p a t- do wn

re ve a le d n o c on tr a

ba nd on his person. How ever , the abse nce of these additional links doe s not ne g ate the circ umstances outlined above w hich do tend to link Matthews to the marihua na. In a cir cumstantial evidenc e case, it is not
ne c e ssa ry that e ve ry fa c t po int dir e c tly and ind e pe nd e ntl y to the de fe nd ant’ s g uil t; it is s uf fi c ie nt i f the jury ’s finding of g uilt is war rante d by the cumulative f

orce of all the incr iminating evid en ce. Po we ll v . S

tat e 194 S.W .3d 503, 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Havingrevie wed the evidenc e under both standards of revie w, we conclude that the evidenc e aff irmatively

linking Matthew s to the marihuana is more than just fortuitou s , an d i s leg ally and fac tually sufficie nt to support his conviction. Ineffe ctive Assistance of Counsel I n his third issue, Matthews argues the trial c ourt err ed in deny ing his motion for new tria l ba se d o n in e ff

e c tiv e a ss is tan ce of c ouns e l. Atr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin g on a mot ion fo r a ne w tri a l is04

- 08

- 00 28 8- CR

- 6- revie wed unde r an a

buse of discr etion standard. State v. He rndon, 2 1 5 S. W. 3 d 9 0 1 , 9 0 6

- 0 8 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2007) (appe llate cour t decides w hether

decision wa s arbitra

ry or unrea sonable). Atrial court a buses its discretion in denying a motion for new tria l only whe n n o re as o n ab le view of the
rec ord could support the tria l court’s ruling
. Id. at 906 n.16 (c itations omi tted). To establish ineff

ective a ssistance of c ounsel, a de fenda nt must show by a pre pondera nce of the evidenc e that (1) his c o u n s el ’s performanc e wa s deficie nt, and (2) the defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d him to such a deg ree that it deprived him of a f air trial. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U. S. 6 68 , 68 7 ( 19 84 ); Go od sp e e d v . S

tat e , 1 87 S.W. 3d

39 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ). Pr e jud ic e is demonstrated w hen ther e is a re asonable probability that, but for counse l’s defic ient perf ormanc e, the result of the pr ocee dings w ould have be en diffe rent. Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 69 4. Un de r t he fi rs t prong of the S

tr ickland test, the defe ndant must show that counsel’s pe rfor mance fell short of a

n objective standa

rd of reasona

bleness and must re but the presumption that counsel’s tria l decisions
wer e base d on sound trial strateg y . Tho mp so n v . S tat e , 9 S.W .3d 808, 812-13 (Te x . Crim. App. 1999). We apply

a “strongpresumption that co u n s el ’s conduct f ell within the wide ra

ng e of
rea sonable prof

essional assistance ,” and r eview the totality of the re prese ntation, not merely isolated acts or omissions, to determine whe ther c ounsel was inef fec tive. Ex Parte Chandler , 182 S.W .3d 35 0, 35 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ); Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 813

. Fa ilure to make the require d showing of either Strickland prong defe ats an inef

fec tive assistance claim. Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 813. He re , M a tth e ws argue s th a t hi s tr ia l c ouns e l r e nd e re d in e ff e c tiv e ass istanc e by

fa ili ngto reque st a hea

ring and obtain a r

uling on a pre- trial motion to suppress the marihua na, and by

failing to object to its admissi on at t rial. Matthews contends the m arihua na shoul d have be en suppre ssed04

- 08

- 00 28 8- CR

- 7- be c a us e it w a s th e pr od

uc t of an il le g a l st op . A t th e he ari ng on Matth e ws ’ mot ion fo r ne w tri a l, h is trial counsel testified a

bout his consideration of the issue a nd his rea soning in de ciding to waive a suppression hea

ring . Counsel testified that he conside red r aising a F ourth Amendment violation based on a

n un warranted de tention, but concluded, “ [a] fter r eviewingthe offic er’ s repor t severa l times
. . ., lo o k in g a t t

h e f a c ts , inv e s ti g a ti n g th e c a s e , th e r e [w a s ] r e a ll y n o th in g in

th e r e p o rt t

h at
wo uld
. . . all ow the Court to ma ke that det e rm inatio n a bs e nt Wi ll M a tth e ws ’ t e sti mony . . . [th a t] he didn’t fe el he ha d a rig ht to leave
. . . or for whateve r rea sons he would have to a rticulate, that he
wa s und e r a

rr e st,
. . . o r at le a st i nv olv e d in an inve sti g a tiv e de te nti on and have to c la im s ome possessory

interest in the mar ijuana.” Counsel f urther rea soned t hat s ince the ma rihuana was found in t he pu bli c do ma in, Matth e ws wo uld have to c la im a

po sse sso ry

int e re st i n th e mari hu a na to
e sta bli shsta nd ingto c ha lle ng e its se izur e . I f the mot ion to sup pr e ss wa s d e nie d, Matth e ws wo uld h av e al re ad y ad m i t t ed a p o s s es s o ry i n t er es t i n t h e m ar i h u an a, an d t h at wo u l d

af fe ct t h e t ri al s t ra t egy of wh e the r M a tth e ws wo uld te sti fy a t tria l in his de fe ns e . Couns e l did not wa nt to put Matth e ws in the pos ition of having to “either perjure himself or try and danc e ar ound the issue that he’ s alrea dy admitted to[ .]” Counsel stated that, “af ter discussing the issues with the family , we f elt it was in the best interest just to waive that he aring .” T h e r ec o rds h o ws t h at M at t h ew s ’ t ri al co un s el m ad e a re as o n eds t ra t egi c d ec i s i o nt o fo re go a suppre ssion hearingafte r a thoroug h investigation of the applica ble law and fac ts. The mere fac t that a di fferent a tto rn e y

may have purs ue d a

dif fe re nt t ri a l st ra te g y is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o e sta

bli sh ineffe ctive assistanc e. Ex pa rteEl lis , 233 S.W .3d 324, 331 n.20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). F urther,
e ve n if an e rr or in t ri a l strate g y

wa s ma de , it

wo uld c on sti tut e ina de qu a te re pr e se ntat io n on ly if counsel’s a ctions were without any plausible basis. See W

rig ht v . S tate , 2 2 3 S. W. 3 d

3 6 , 4 3 ( T e x.04

- 08

- 00 28 8- CR

- 8- App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. re f’d) . That is not the case here
. The rec ord shows counsel made a considere d decision not to challeng e the admission of t he mar ihuana, but to employ the trial strateg y of for cing the State to meet its burden of proof with evide nce a ffirmatively linking Matthew s to the marihuana found ly ing in a public street. Matthews failed to pr ove counse l’s perf ormanc e wa s defic ient, and ther efor e fa iled t o est ablish his claim of ineff ective a ssistance. See Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 813. Acc ording ly , the t rial court did not abuse its discre tion in deny ing Matthews’ motion for a new tria l. Matthews’ third issue is overr uled. Trial Cour t’ s Co mm e nts I n h is f ourt h is su e , M a tth e ws c on te nd s th a t c omm e nts ma de by the tr ia l ju dg e imp a ir e d h is presumption of i nnocenc e and denied him a f air trial. On c ross-examination, counsel for Matthews elicited fr om Office r Her

rer a that he was a United States Marine . During re- direc t, the State asked if Her rer a wa s a Mar ine, and whe ther he participated in Dese rt Storm. Matthews objected on the g rounds of re levanc e and bolster ing the witness. The prosecutor responded that he was try ing to g et to the “prope rties of lig ht” and the issue of whether the officer saw any thing on the street bef

ore he stopped Matthews that night. The trial judge then stated, “I respe ct Marines mightily but w hat does that have to do with w hether he saw it? ” The court then instructed the State n o t t o m en t i o n t he office r’s military

backg round, at whic h point the prosec utor apolog ized. The trial judg e re sponded, “I am one of

them, so that is all right. I don’t think that has any

thing to do with it.” Gene rally , to preser

ve er ror f or appe l l at e re v iew, the r ecor d must show that a specific and timely objection was made to the trial court. T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1(a) (1). Matthews acknow ledg es he ma de n o obje c tio n to the c ourt ’s c omm e nts ; ho we ve r, he a sse rt s th e c omm e nts c on sti tut e fundame ntal err or of constitutional dim ension and thus re quired no objec tion to preserve the issue04

- 08

- 00 28 8- CR

- 9- f o r a p p e a l u n d e r T e xa s Ru le o f E v id e n c e 103(d). See T EX . R. E V ID . 103(d) ( providing , “[i] n a crimin a l c a s e , n o th in g in th e s e r u le s p r e c lu d e s ta

k in g n o ti c e o f

f u n d a me n ta l e r

r o r s a f f e c ting substantial rig hts although the y wer e not broug ht to the attention of the court” ). Matthews ar g ues the court’s comments are analog ous to those in Bl ue v . S tat e , in whic h the tr ia l ju dg e ’s c omm e nts that the def

endant c onsidered e ntering into a plea a g ree ment, and he w ould have pr efe rre d that the defe ndant plead guilty , wer e held to be fundame ntal err or of a constitutional dim ension bec ause the y tainted the def

endant’ s presumption of innocenc e; there fore , under Rule 103(d), no objection was require d to preser

ve the e rror . Se e Bl ue v . S tat e , 41 S.W .3d 129, 131-32 (Te x . Crim. App. 2000). At most, the trial judge ’s comments that he respe cts Marines and was one himself could have provided some bolstering eff ect to Offic er Herr era ’s credibility
. Howeve r, the judg e also re peate d twice that be ing a

Marine ha d nothing to do with the issues of lighting a nd whether

the offic er sa

w the marihua

na ther e bef

ore his conta ct with Matthews. The court’s c omments did not i n an y way implicate Matthews’ presumption of inno ce n ce , as the c omments in Blue d id , an d r e a d in c o n te xt did not ex press a clea

r bi as i n favor

of the State or a g ainst Matthews, or other wise deny Matthews a fa ir trial. See id. at 132. Thus, the comments do not rise to the leve l of “funda mental er ror of a
c on sti tut ion a l di me ns ion ;” state d a no the r w ay , th e c omm e nts did no t vi ola te an a bs olute sy ste mic rig ht and any err or was forf eited by the fa ilure to object. Se e Br um it v . S tat e , 206 S.W .3d 639, 644- 45 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ) ( a lso no tin g that Blue was merely a plurality decision, and that the cor rec t test for una ssigne d err or wa s set forth in Marin v. State, 851 S.W .2d 275, 279-80 (Te x . Crim. App. 19 93 ) ( de sc ri bin g the thr e e c a te g or ie s of rig hts a s “ a bs olute sy ste mic re qu ir e me nts and pr oh ibi tio ns ” and rig hts w hich must be implemented unless expressly waived, ne ither of whic h may be for feited,04

- 08

- 00 28 8- CR

- 10- and ri g hts wh ic h a

re to b e imp le me nte d o nly up on re qu e st a nd thu s may be fo rf

e ite d) ). Matth e ws ’ fourth issue is overr

uled. Adm ission of Evidence I n h is f ina l is su e , M a tth e ws c la ims the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d b y pe rm itt in g Of

fi c e r H e rr e ra

to testify to his opini on that Matthews “knew he had marihuana on him ” bec ause it constituted a leg al conclusion. Duringdirec t examination, t he prose cutor a sked Offic er Her rer a, “[b] ased upon your training and experienc e, do y ou know whethe r a pe rsons [si c] know that they have r eckle ssly

car ried marihuana

with them? ” The office r replied aff irmatively , and the State then a sked the off icer , “[a]nd what is y our opinion? ” The office r beg an to explain that “rec klessly ” mea ns “ca rry ing it for
someone e lse or not without reg ardle ss [ sic] to knowing.” At that point, counse l for Matthews interrupted, a

nd stated, “I

am g oing to objec t to this response . I t calls for a leg al conc lusion.” The court instructe d the offic er to just answe r t he question, and tol d the prosec utor to ask it ag ain. The prosec utor then aske d the offic er, “ do y ou think he knew that he had mar ihuan a o n him? ” No objection was ma de, and the office r re plied, “y es, sir, I do.” As n o t ed , su

pra , to preser

ve an issue f

or appe llate re view, a timely and spec ific objec tion must be made in the trial c ourt. T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1(a). In addition, to pres er v e an error in the admission of evidenc e, the pa rty must object eac h time the inadmissible evidence i s offe red, or obtain a runningobjection. Va llev . S tat e , 109 S.W. 3d 50 0, 50 9 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ); W hite v. Sta te , 256 S.W .3d 380, 382 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref ’d). F urther, any

err or in the admission of the evidenc e is cure d when the same evidence is admitted elsewhe re w ithout objection. Valle, 10 9 S. W.3 d at 50 9; W hit e , 256 S.W .3d at 382.04

- 08

- 00 28 8- CR

- 11- He re , th e fu ll c on te xt of th e rec or d s ho ws that Matth e ws ob je c te d to He rr e ra

statin g his opinion a bout whether

a per son knows they

have re c k

le ssl y car ried marihuana, but fa iled to object to the sub s eq u ent re lated, but diffe rent, que stion asking the of fice r his opinion about whether Matth e ws “ knewhe had marihuana on him.” (empha sis added). See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 6.03 (Ve rnon 2003) ( defining “re cklessly ” and “ knowing ly ” as t wo distinct culpable mental states)
. Matthews similarly

did not object to a prior question to O ffice r He rre ra a sking w hether he believe d, ba se d o n h is tra ini ngand e xpe ri e nc e , th a t Matth e ws “ is the on e wh o p ut the m ari hu ana the re ,” to which He rre ra r eplied, “Y es, sir, I do.” Thus, substantially the s ame evidence conce rning whether Matthews kno wi n gl y

and intentionally

possessed the mar ihuana wa s previously admitted without
o b je c ti o n , th e r e b y c u r in g an y e r r o r in it s a d mission. Valle, 109 S.W .3d at 509. Fur ther, e ven without the prior admission of the same evidenc e, Matthews’ failure to object to the question he now challeng es on appe al i s not excused beca use the que stion was not a suffic iently simil ar r estateme nt of the objec ted-to question that i t rendered a further objection “f

utile.” Cf. , G ra ha m v . S

tat e , 710 S.W .2d 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (holding e rror was not wa ived by

defe ndant’s fa ilure to object beca use re -phra sed sec ond question was nea rly identical to first question to which objec tion was raised) . There fore , any

err or wa s not preser

ved. T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1. Conclu sion Ba sed on the for eg oing a

naly sis, the judgment of

the trial cour

t is affirmed.
Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice DO NO T PU B L I SH