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

NO. 03-0 7 -00 678 -CR

M oha m e d M ous ta fa Br ahi m , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

FR OM T HE C OU N T Y C OU R T A T L A W N O. 7 OF T R A V IS C OU N T Y NO. C1CR0672 3749 , HO NORAB LE ELISAB ETH ASH LEA EARLE , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Af te r a jur y fo un d a pp e lla nt M oh a me d M ou sta fa

B ra him g uil ty of dr ivi ngwh ile intox icated, the trial court assessed his punishment at 120 day s in jail and a $2,000 fine, suspe nded imposit ion of sentenc e, and pla ced him on communit y supervision for two year s. SeeTex. P enal Code Ann. § 49.04 (West 2003). In his only poi n t o f er ro r, appellant contends the admission of
cer tain testimony

was funda

mental er ror. We over

rule this contention and a ffirm the c onviction. Austin Pol ice Of

fice r Patrick Obor ski s t o pped the c ar a ppellant was dr iving a fter he and a nother off

icer observe d sever al traf

fic violations. Ob o rs k i arr ested a ppellant for dr iving wh ile int oxic a te d a ft e r a

pp e ll ant d isp lay e d s ig ns of int oxic a tio n a

nd fa ile d th e fi e ld s ob ri e ty

te sts . The suff iciency of the e vidence is not in di spute. Duringthe cour se of his testimony , Oborski mentioned that “r esea rch” had bee n done
on the fi e ld s ob ri e ty

te sts , d e sc ri be d the te sts a s “ sta nd ard ize d, ” and

re fe rr e d to the re su lts of

the te sts2

as “c lues.” Appe lla

nt argues that by

using those te rms, Oborski “c lear ly sug g ested that the w alk-a

ndturn test and the one -legstand test wer e scie ntifically validated , a propositi on that no Texas court has ag ree d to.” He ur g es that the off icer attempted to conve y

an unqualified expert opinion that the tests had s cientific validity in violation of rule 702. Tex. R. Evi d. 702. Appellant conc edes that the alleg ed er ror wa s not preser

ved at tria l. He urg es, howeve r, that the a dmission of the testimony was fundame ntal err or under

rule 103(d) . Tex. R. Evi d. 103(d). Rule 103(d) states that “[i] n criminal cases, nothing in these rules pr eclude s taking notice of f

undamental e rror s aff

ectingsubstantial rig hts al though the y wer e not broug ht to the attention of the c ourt.” The rule pe rmits appellate c ourts to consid er unpr eser ved, funda

mental
e vid e nti ary

e rr or s. An e rr or is fund ame nta l, that is, it may be ra ise d for the fi rs t ti me on a pp e a l, i f the error viol ates a rig ht that is waivable only or vi olates an absolute sy stemic requir ement. Ma rin
v . S tate , 851 S.W .2d 275, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).

Appellant refer s us to no authority holding that the r ight to exclude unqualifie d expert op ini on te sti mony

un de r r ule 70 2 is e ith e r a wa iva

ble on ly ri g ht or an a

bs olute sy ste mic re qu ir e me nt. I n Sm ith v . S

tate , cited by appellant, the court held that “a trial court commit s err or whe n it allows
an expert on administering the [field sobrie t y ] tests, over obje ction , to corre late a suspe ct’s p er fo rm an ce o n either the walk-a nd-turn test or the one -legstand test to a [blood alcohol
conce ntration]. 65 S.W .3d 332, 348 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.) (emphasis added)
. Sm ith is dis tin g uis ha

ble be c a us e a pp e lla nt d id n ot o bje c t to th e tes timony he c omp la ins of

, a nd be c a us e Oborski did n o t co rr elate a ppellant’s per formanc e on the f ield sobriety

tests to a specific blood alcohol conc entration.3 Ap pe lla nt a lso c ite s Mc

Ra e v . S tate , 152 S.W .3d 739, 746-47 (Te x . App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d). I n McRae , the cour t held that a police of

fice r’s testimony

reg arding
a su sp e c t’ s p e rf

or manc e on the on e -l e g sta

nd te st w a s pr op e rl y a dmi tte d a s la y op ini on un de r r ule 701. Id . at 746. The c ourt furthe r held, c ontrary to a ppellant’s contention, that the office r’s use of terms such a s “clue s” and “test” when discussingthe suspect’ s perf ormanc e did not violate rule 702. Id
. McRae do e s not me nti on wh e the r the a sse rt e d e rr or s w e re pr e se rv e d b y ob je c tio n, but th e re is
no thi ngin t

he op ini on

to s ug g e st that th e c ourt

c on sid e re d th e iss ue s to be fu nd a me nta l. T h e court of criminal appe als has “c onsistently held that the fa ilure to object in a timely and spec ific manne r duringt ri al fo rfeits complaints about the admissibil ity of evide nce.” Sa lda no v . S

tate , 70 S.W .3d 873, 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (footnote omitted). We hol d that the
asser ted violation of rule 702, if err or, was not fundame ntal err or, and a ppellant’s fa ilure to object fo rf e ite d h is r ig ht t o a sse rt

the e rr or on a pp e a l. The point of er

ror is over

ruled, a nd the judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: August 20, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh