IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00368-CR

LARRY G. WATSON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-1136-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Larry G. Watson, was charged by indictment with one count of 

aggravated sexual assault of a child, a first-degree felony, see TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 

22.021(a)(1)(B)(i), (e) (West Supp. 2011); one count of indecency with a child by contact, 

a second-degree felony, see id. § 22.11(a)(1), (d) (West 2011); and one count of indecency 

with a child by exposure, a third-degree felony.1 See id. § 21.11(a)(2)(A), (d) (West 2011). 

 

1 The jury assessed punishment at seventy-five years’ confinement for the count of aggravated 

sexual assault of a child, twenty years’ confinement for the count of indecency with a child by contact, 
Watson v. State Page 2

In one issue, Watson argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying him his 

right of confrontation and prohibiting him from properly impeaching the complainant 

pursuant to Texas Rule of Evidence 613. See TEX. R. EVID. 613. We affirm.2

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution provides that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the 

right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. CONST. amend. VI. This 

procedural guarantee applies to both federal and state prosecutions. Pointer v. Texas, 

380 U.S. 400, 403, 85 S. Ct. 1065, 1067-68, 13 L. Ed. 2d 923 (1965); De La Paz v. State, 273 

S.W.3d 671, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

The Sixth Amendment protects the defendant’s right not only to confront the 

witnesses against him, but to cross-examine them as well. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 

308, 316, 94 S. Ct. 1105, 1110, 39 L .Ed. 2d 347 (1974). “The exposure of a witness’ 

motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally 

protected right of cross-examination.” Davis, 415 U.S. at 316-17, 94 S. Ct. at 1110. The 

accused is entitled to great latitude to show a witness’ bias or motive to falsify his 

testimony. See Hodge v. State, 631 S.W.2d 754, 758 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1982).

However, the right of cross-examination is not unlimited. The trial court retains 

wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination. See Delaware v. Van 

 

and ten years’ confinement for the count of indecency with a child by exposure. The trial court ordered 

the sentences to run consecutively.

2 Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not 

recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court’s decision and the basic reasons for 

it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
Watson v. State Page 3

Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678, 106 S. Ct. 1431, 1434-35, 89 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1986). The trial court 

must carefully consider the probative value of the evidence and weigh it against the 

risks of admission. See Hodge, 631 S.W.2d at 758. These potential risks include “the 

possibility of undue prejudice, embarrassment or harassment to either a witness or a 

party, the possibility of misleading or confusing a jury, and the possibility of undue 

delay or waste of time.” Id.; see Lopez v. State, 18 S.W.3d 220, 222 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); 

see also Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Moreover, “the 

Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not 

cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, or to whatever extent, the defense 

might wish.” Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20, 106 S. Ct. 292, 294, 88 L. Ed. 2d 15 

(1985) (emphasis in original); see Walker v. State, 300 S.W.3d 836, 844-45 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth 2009, pet. ref’d).

II. ANALYSIS

Here, the complainant, fourteen-year-old B.D., testified that, when she was 

eleven years old, Watson exposed himself to her, masturbated in front of her, took 

pictures of her naked, fondled her breasts, and penetrated her vagina with his fingers. 

B.D. described the incidents using graphic terminology, including “jacking off” and 

“cum.” After inquiring about the incidents allegedly involving Watson, the prosecutor 

then asked B.D. about a prior sexual assault she allegedly endured at the hands of her 

mother’s ex-boyfriend, Danny Suarez. On cross-examination, defense counsel 

questioned B.D. about Suarez’s actions and also began to ask about an incident in 2004 

involving “a young person,” which required Child Protective Services to intervene. The 
Watson v. State Page 4

State objected to defense counsel’s line of questioning pertaining to the young person as 

being irrelevant and deliberately confusing and asserted that B.D. had denied that 

anything transpired in that incident. After hearing argument from both sides, the trial 

court sustained the State’s objection. In response to the trial court’s ruling, defense 

counsel made the following statement:

Okay. And, Judge, I’ll have to except to that because I think the child’s 

experience—the State has talked about how many times she’s been talked 

to about things, sexual questions. There’s always the issue that when 

you’re talking to a child just the questioning puts ideas into their mind, 

gives them information about things sexual, makes them aware of the 

affect [sic] of allegations of sexual misconduct and so forth. And this has 

been going on in this child’s life for many years. And I think that’s critical 

to this Defendant having a fair trial. Just—I understand the ruling. 

At no point in trial did defense counsel argue that the trial court’s ruling on the 

State’s objection violated Texas Rule of Evidence 613 or the Confrontation Clause; 

instead, he made a vague objection without citing any authority. Based on our review 

of the record, Watson’s complaint on appeal does not comport with his objection in the 

trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2002) (stating that a complaining party must make a timely and specific objection 

to preserve error for appellate review); see also Wright v. State, 154 S.W.3d 235, 241 (Tex. 

App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. ref’d) (noting that points of error on appeal must 

correspond or comport with objections and arguments made at trial) (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 
Watson v. State Page 5

review.” Wright, 154 S.W.3d at 241; see Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1999).

Furthermore, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that, when 

complaining about the exclusion of evidence, the proponent is required to make an offer 

of proof and obtain a ruling in order to preserve error. Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 

176 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Watson did not make a particularized showing that the 

2004 allegation he wished to reference was where B.D. gained knowledge about “sexual 

things” or that it actually made her aware of the effect of allegations of sexual 

misconduct.3 Watson also failed to obtain a ruling from the trial court on his objection. 

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Watson failed to preserve his appellate 

complaints in this matter. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Reyna, 168 S.W.3d at 176; Wilson, 71 

S.W.3d at 349; see also Wright, 154 S.W.3d at 241. Accordingly, Watson’s sole issue is 

overruled. 

III. CONCLUSION

Having overruled Watson’s only issue on appeal, we affirm the judgments of the 

trial court.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

 

3

In fact, it is arguable that B.D. gained the “sexual knowledge” that Watson complains about as a 

result of the sexual assault allegedly perpetrated by Suarez and that questioning about the 2004 incident 

would confuse or mislead the jury or serve to embarrass or harass B.D. See Hodge v. State, 631 S.W.2d 754, 

758 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1982); see also Lopez v. State, 18 S.W.3d 220, 222 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); 

Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). 
Watson v. State Page 6

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed May 23, 2012

Do not publish

[CR25]