Opinion issued August 8, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-22-00284-CR

———————————

IVAN BURGOS SANTIAGO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 264th District Court

Bell County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 82101

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant Ivan Burgos Santiago guilty of the offense of 

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

1 The trial court assessed his punishment 

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.02(a)(2).
2

at eight years’ confinement.2In two issues on appeal, Santiago argues that (1) the 

trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to introduce police body

camera footage during rebuttal because it was cumulative and harmed Santiago by 

its admission, and (2) the State injected “new harmful facts” during closing 

argument.

We affirm.

Background

The complainant, Jerry Davis, stopped at a convenience store and observed 

Santiago’s vehicle blocking “an old man trying to back out.” Davis told Santiago 

to move his car. According to Davis, Santiago “[s]tarted talking crazy” and 

“cussing.” Davis was offended by the things Santiago was saying, so Davis told 

Santiago he was “not the one to mess with” and walked on his way. As Davis 

continued to walk down the street, Santiago followed in his vehicle, pulled up next 

to Davis, and used a racial slur. Santiago got out of his vehicle, Davis saw that he 

had “a knife.”

3 Davis and Santiago fought, and Davis was cut on his hands and 

neck. Davis was concerned with protecting himself because he was worried he

would be killed. 

2 Pursuant to its docket equalization authority, the Supreme Court of Texas 

transferred this appeal to this Court from the Third Court of Appeals. See TEX.

GOV’T CODE § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of cases).

3 There were varying descriptions of this weapon. Davis called it a knife, but

another witness called it a box cutter. The only weapon recovered at the scene was 

a box cutter that Santiago confirmed belonged to him.
3

Davis testified that another man was passing by and helped him subdue 

Santiago. Davis testified that, “while [he] was holding [Santiago’s] hand keeping 

the knife from getting out, [Santiago] kept twisting, twisting, twisting.” Davis “told 

him to stop, your arm is going to break and he just kept twisting and it broke.”

When the police arrived, they stopped fighting.

Johnny Wilson was the bystander who helped Davis subdue Santiago. He 

testified that he witnessed Santiago stop his vehicle in the middle of the road. 

Wilson saw that Santiago had a box cutter in his hand and was arguing with Davis. 

Wilson testified that he saw Santiago cut Davis a couple of times before Davis 

“was able to grab [Santiago’s] hand and bring him down.” When Wilson saw this, 

he got out of his vehicle and ran up to help Davis. Wilson told Santiago to let go of 

the blade, but Santiago “wouldn’t let it go” and “was trying to get that blade out so 

he could throw some more swings and try to cut people.”

Officer T. Lundt responded to 9-1-1 calls reporting a fight with a weapon. 

When he arrived at the scene, “[t]here was a lot of chaos going on.” He saw that 

there were a lot of bystanders, two men sitting down and “covered in blood,” a 

vehicle stopped in the middle of the road, and “someone holding a small knife.” He 

detained and cuffed both Santiago and Davis to secure the scene until police could 

determine what had happened. Officer Lundt also “secured the weapon that was on 
4

the ground,” describing it as “a small box cutter like knife.” Santiago was 

eventually charged with the aggravated assault of Davis.

Santiago testified on his own behalf. He testified that after Davis told him to 

move his car, he decided to drive home to get some tools. He denied calling Davis 

any names. He testified that Davis crossed into the street in front of his vehicle,

forcing him to stop in the middle of the street. Santiago testified that, when he got

out of his car, Davis had a knife in his hand that Davis used to attack him. When 

they fell to the ground during the fight, Davis dropped the knife and Santiago 

picked it up. Santiago testified that he received a cut and a broken arm during the 

altercation.

Santiago identified the box cutter that was collected from the scene as 

belonging to him. When asked how the box cutter ended up on the sidewalk at the 

scene of the assault, he testified, “I suppose that when we were fighting it fell from 

my side pocket where I keep it and somebody must have grabbed it.” Santiago 

testified that the assault happened with a knife that Davis had in his hand. Santiago 

did not know what happened to that knife. When the State pointed out that no other 

witness mentioned seeing Davis with a knife, Santiago disagreed. He testified that 

Davis or Wilson “did something with it.”

On rebuttal, Officer J. Leach testified that he also responded to the call about

Santiago’s altercation. When he arrived, he observed Santiago and Davis 
5

“fighting” and “struggling” with each other. They quickly separated, and Officer 

Leach noticed that both men had injuries. Officer Leach believed that Santiago’s 

arm was already broken when the fight stopped, and he also noted in his report that 

Santiago wanted to press charges against Davis for assaulting him with a knife.

The State sought to admit a 30-minute recording from Officer Leach’s body

camera depicting the scene after the police arrived. Santiago objected that the 

video was “improper rebuttal to the defense case,” which consisted of Santiago’s 

testimony. The State argued that Santiago made statements during his testimony 

about what had happened, where certain people were located, the number of 

weapons involved and other matters that created a conflict between his testimony 

and that of other witnesses. The State argued that it “would be helpful to the jury to 

understand what happened at that moment shortly after [the fight] occurred.” The 

trial court overruled the objection and granted Santiago a running objection. The 

State played the video to the jury, accompanied by Officer Leach’s testimony

explaining portions of the footage. The video showed the end of the fight between 

Santiago and Davis, the collection of evidence, and statements made by Santiago 

and Davis to Officer Leach, among other things.

During closing argument, the State was summarizing the efforts police took 

during the investigation of the scene. The following exchange occurred:

[State]: These officers did their job, they did a good job. It’s just 

very obvious what happened. They talked to witnesses on 
6

the scene that told them what happened. They found this 

box cutter. Right there. Right there where the guys were.

[Court]: Time to wrap up. . . .

[State]: Thank you, your Honor. This box cutter which still to 

this day has the victim’s blood on it.

[Santiago]: Objection, Your Honor. There’s no—

[Court]: Ladies and gentlemen, the lawyer comments are not 

evidence. You heard the evidence from the witness stand. 

You’ll remember the evidence.

[State]: Thank you. It was all there all contained in this one 

location. The officers investigated. They found out what 

happened, and now everyone has told you. . . .

The State concluded its closing argument, and the trial court sent the jury to 

deliberate. Santiago made no further objections or requests regarding the State’s 

argument.

The jury found Santiago guilty of aggravated assault, and it made an 

affirmative finding that he used a deadly weapon. The trial court assessed 

Santiago’s punishment at eight years’ confinement. This appeal followed.

Admission of Body Camera Footage

In his first issue, Santiago argues that the trial court abused its discretion in 

allowing the State to present the video from Officer Leach’s body camera in 

rebuttal to Santiago’s testimony. 
7

A. Standard of Review

We review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse 

of discretion. Rhomer v. State, 569 S.W.3d 664, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019). We 

will not reverse a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence, and there is 

no abuse of discretion, unless that decision lies outside the zone of reasonable 

disagreement. Beham v. State, 559 S.W.3d 474, 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).

For a complaint to be properly preserved for appellate review, a party must 

present a specific, timely objection to the trial court that articulates and makes the 

trial court aware of the specific grounds for the ruling that the complaining party 

seeks. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); TEX. R. EVID. 103(a); Burg v. State, 592 

S.W.3d 444, 448–49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). Further, the complaint raised on 

appeal must correspond to and comport with the objection made at trial. See

Hallmark v. State, 541 S.W.3d 167, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); Lovill v. State, 

319 S.W.3d 687, 691–92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (noting that issue is not 

preserved “if the legal basis of the complaint raised on appeal varies from the 

complaint made at trial”).

B. Analysis

Santiago objected at trial to the admission of the video from Officer Leach’s 

body camera on the ground that it was not proper rebuttal evidence. Now on 

appeal, he argues that the evidence “was cumulative and could have been presented 
8

during the State’s case-in-chief,” citing to Rules of Evidence 401 through 403. He

argues that the video was duplicative and a needless presentation of cumulative 

evidence. Because his objection on appeal does not comport with his objection at 

trial, he has not preserved this complaint for review on appeal. See Hallmark, 541

S.W.3d at 171; see also, e.g., Lopez v. State, 200 S.W.3d 246, 251 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (holding that “a specific Rule 403 objection 

must be raised to preserve error” because Rule 403 complaint is not implicitly 

contained in general objection to relevancy or objection under some other rule of 

evidence). 

To the extent that Santiago is attempting to reassert his objection at trial that 

the video of body camera footage was not proper rebuttal evidence and, thus, the 

trial court erred in overruling his objection and admitting the video, we disagree.

Santiago argues that “the State could have called Leach to testify in its case-inchief” but instead, the State “waited until after [Santiago] testified to call Leach 

and introduce duplicative and cumulative evidence which had already been 

presented, presumably so the last witness the jury would hear from was a State’s 

witness.”

In general, “[t]he prosecution is entitled on rebuttal to present any evidence 

that tends to refute the defensive theory of the accused and the evidence introduced 

in support of it.” Laws v. State, 549 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); see
9

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 36.01(a) (setting order of proceeding in trial, including 

that “[r]ebutting testimony may be offered on the part of each party” following 

defendant’s presentation of evidence); id. art. 36.02 (“The court shall allow 

testimony to be introduced at any time before the argument of a cause is 

concluded, if it appears that it is necessary to a due administration of justice.”); 

Lackey v. State, 638 S.W.2d 439, 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (en banc) (“This 

Court has often held that [Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 36.02] and its 

predecessors mean that testimony may be introduced in the rebuttal portion of a

trial whether it specifically rebuts other testimony or not.”).

Santiago’s testimony challenged factual details set out by the State’s 

witnesses. Santiago testified that Davis instigated the fight, that Davis had a knife 

of his own, that Davis or Wilson “did something” with Davis’s knife immediately 

following the fight, and that his own box cutter must have fallen from his pocket 

during the fight. On rebuttal, the State sought to admit the body camera footage to 

show the immediate aftermath of the altercation and the investigation and 

collection of evidence by police. We cannot say that the trial court abused its 

discretion in determining that this evidence was generally admissible as rebuttal 

evidence. See Laws, 549 S.W.2d at 741; Lackey, 638 S.W.2d at 457.

We overrule Santiago’s first issue.
10

Statement During Closing Argument

In his second issue, Santiago argues that the State “injected new, harmful 

facts during jury argument that were not supported by the record.”

A. Standard of Review

“The purpose of closing argument is to facilitate the jury in properly 

analyzing the evidence presented at trial so that it may ‘arrive at a just and 

reasonable conclusion based on the evidence alone, and not on any fact not 

admitted in evidence.’” Milton v. State, 572 S.W.3d 234, 239 (Tex. Crim. App.

2019) (quoting Campbell v. State, 610 S.W.2d 754, 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) 

(panel op.)). “[T]he bounds of proper closing argument are left to the sound 

discretion of the trial court.” Id. at 240.

As stated above, for a complaint to be properly preserved for appellate 

review, a party must present a specific, timely objection to the trial court that 

articulates and makes the trial court aware of the specific grounds for the ruling 

that the complaining party seeks. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); TEX. R. EVID.

103(a); Burg, 592 S.W.3d at 448–49. A defendant’s failure to pursue an adverse 

ruling on his objection to a jury argument forfeits his right to complain about the 

argument on appeal. Hernandez v. State, 538 S.W.3d 619, 622–23 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2018) (citing Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)).
11

B. Analysis.

During closing argument, the State commented that Davis’s blood was “still 

to this day” on Santiago’s box cutter. Santiago’s counsel objected, but before he 

could state the specific grounds of the objection, the trial court stated, “Ladies and 

gentlemen, the lawyer comments are not evidence. You heard the evidence from 

the witness stand. You’ll remember the evidence.” Santiago did not make any 

further objections or requests regarding the State’s argument that the box cutter 

still had Davis’s blood on it.

Thus, Santiago failed to pursue his objection to an adverse ruling and, 

therefore, forfeits his right to complain on appeal about the argument. See id. at 

622 (holding that defendant “must object and pursue his objection to an adverse 

ruling” or he “forfeits his right to complain on appeal about the argument”). 

Assuming without deciding that the State’s comment was improper,4the trial court 

here essentially instructed the jury to disregard the lawyer’s comments and 

consider only the evidence that was admitted at trial. “In order to claim on appeal 

that an instruction to disregard was inadequate to cure erroneous jury argument, the 

defendant must object and pursue his objection to an adverse ruling.” Id.; see also 

4 When Officer Lundt testified about collecting the box cutter as evidence, he 

testified that the blade was open, he observed that both men were bleeding and 

there were cuts to Davis’s neck and arm, and the blade “appear[ed] to have a 

substance on it that look[ed] like blood.” The State also introduced photographs of 

the box cutter as Officer Lundt described it.
12

Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274, 303 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (even assuming 

prosecutor’s argument was so egregious that instruction to disregard would be 

ineffectual, defendant “should have moved for a mistrial to preserve this error”).

Santiago failed to pursue his objection to an adverse ruling or to move for mistrial, 

so he has forfeited review of this issue.

We overrule Santiago’s second issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Richard Hightower

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).