Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 9, 202 4

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00478

- CR

JESSICA LYNN MUSANTE , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 1

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. 18

- CCR

- 198221A

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Jessica Musante was charged with theft of property of more than $100 and less than $750. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(2)(A). She was
convic ted by a jury and sentenced to 30 days in jail . Appe l lant asserts two issues on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in admitting surveillance video of the incident because the video lacked a proper chain of custody; and (2) the court erred in admitting the p olice body camera video because appellant’s en counte r with police constituted custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. Miranda v. Arizona
,2

384 U.S. 436, 467

– 68 (1966). Finding no error, we overrule appellant’s issues and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Background
On December 28, 2017, a Tar g et asset protection manager observed appellant stuffing cosmetics worth $378.82 into her purse and leaving without paying for the items. Appellant objected to the introduc tion of a surveillance video showing her in the st ore bas ed on hearsay, arguing the business record exception did not apply. Appellant also objected to the introduction of police body camera video because it depicted a custodial interrogation and she was not given her
Miranda warnings

. The trial court overruled both objections.
Analysis

I. Authentication
A. Error not preserved because the objection at trial was different than the error argued on appeal. In her first issue, appellant claims the court erred in admittin g a surveillance video of the incident because the video lacked a proper chain of custody. But she did not preserve error on appeal because her objection in the trial court does not match her complai nt on appeal. To preserve an error for appellate review, the complaining party must make a specific objection and obtain a ruling on the objection. Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). If an objection made in the trial court diffe rs from the complaint made on appeal, a
defendant has not preserved any error for review. Thomas v. State, 723 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim

. App. 1986)

. Here, the defense objection made in the trial court

— hearsay

— differs from the defense complaint on ap peal: a lack of authentication error due to an improper ch ain of custody. See H2O Sols., Ltd. v. PM Realty Grp., LP , 438 S.W.3d3

606, 623 n.6 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (“Authenticity of a document and admissibility of that document u nder an exception to the hearsay rule are separ ate inquiri es.”) Specifically, the authentication inquiry is a prerequisite to admissibili ty. See S.D.G. v. State, 936 S.W.2d 371, 381 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1996)
, writ denied ). (“ The requirement of
authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. ”) Similarly , this court held a hearsay objection made at trial
d oes not preserve a Confrontation Clause error on appeal. See Craven v. State , 579 S.W.3d 784, 786

- 87 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (Finding that an objection made on hearsay grounds does not preserve a Confrontation Clause complaint on app eal

. )
A t trial, the defense objected to the surveillance vid eo marked State’s Exhibit 2 because it was hearsay and the business record exce ption was not
satisfied . The trial court overruled that objection. On appeal, appellant claims the
trial court fail ed to properly authenticate the surveillance video marked State’s Exhibit 2 because a proper chain of custody was not established, as no one from the company which stored the video testified that the co mpany received the video or returned it to prosecutors

. In sum, appellant did not preserve any error for review because the objection at trial was different than the complaint made on appeal. Se e Thomas, 723 S.W.2d

at 700.
B. No authentication error b ecause surveillance video was authenticated through a witnes s with personal knowledge. But even if appellant preserved her authentication objection on appeal, her argument fails. On appeal, we review a trial court's ruling on authentication issues
under a n abus e of discretion standard. Fowler v. State , 544 S.W.3d 844, 848 (Tex.4

Crim. App. 2018). This deferential standard requires us to uphold a trial court's admissibility decision when that decision is within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Id. A tria l court is given considerable latitude with regard to its

ev identiary rulings, and different trial judges may “ reach different conclusions in different trials on substantially similar facts without abu sing their discretion. ” Id

. To authenticate a p iece of evidence, the proponent must provide evidence
sufficient to s how “the item is what the propone nt claims it is.” Tex. R. Evid. 901(a). Evidence may be authenticated in a number of ways, including by di rect testimony from a witness with personal know ledge, by comparison with other authenticated evidence, or by circums tantial evidence. Tienda v. State , 358 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). “ [T ] he most common way to authenticate a video is through th e testimony of a witness with personal knowledg e who observed
the scene

. ” Jackson v. State , 617 S.W.3d 916, 931 ((Tex. Ap p.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.) (quoting Fowler
, 5 44 S.W.3d at 849 ).
Video recordings without audio are treated as photographs a nd are properly authenticated when it can be pr oved that the images accurately represent the scene in question and are relevant to a disputed issue. Fowler
, 5 44 S.W.3d at 849

. A ny witness who observed the object or the scene depicted in the photograph may lay the predicate. S.D.G. 936 S.W.2d at 381.The trial court is afforded considerable discretion in ruling on the admissibility of photographic evidence. Id. “ W hen a motion picture or a photogr aph is a proper representation of an important fact in issue, th e admission or rejection of it is a matter whic h rests largely within the discretion of the trial judge, and that decision will not be disturbed on appeal
unle ss an abuse of discretion is show n. ” Id. (quoting Apache Ready Mix Co., Inc.

v. Creed, 653 S.W.2 d 79, 84 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1983, writ dism'd)

. Evidence can also be authenticated by the “ appearance, contents, substance,5

internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with
al l the circumstances. ” Jackson , 617 S. W.3d at 93 1 (quoting Fowler
, 5 44 S.W.3d
at 849 ). In a jury trial, it is the jury's role ultimately to determine whether an item of evidence is indeed what its proponent claims; the trial court need only make the

p reliminary determination that the proponent of the item has supplied facts
sufficient to sup port a reasonable jury determination that the proffered evidence is
authentic. Butler v. State , 459 S.W.3d 595, 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). Conclusive proof of auth enticity before allowing admission of dispu ted evidence is not required. Fowler
, 544 S.W.3d at 848. The authentication rule 901 “ merely requires some evidence sufficient to support a finding that evidence in question is what the proponent claims. ” Id.
Here , the surveillance video marked State’s Exh ibit 2 was properly
authenticated because a witness with personal knowledge
, the Target asset protection manager Christopher Beisart, testified he was operating the video surveillance system when the video was cap tured . Moreover, Beisart testified that
the surveillance v ideo, w hich has no sound, was a true and accurate representation of the events and that the video had not been altered in any way. Finally, t he surveillance video was properly authenticated beca use Beisart testified that he

reco gnized his in itials on it. In conclusion, the surveillance video marked State’s Exhibit 2 was properly authenticated because Beisart had persona l knowledge of the recording and testified it accurately represented the scene. We over rule a p pellant’s first point of

error

. II. Miranda e rror not preserved due to the objection’s lack of specificity. In appellant’s second point of error, appellant claims the court erred in6

admitting the police body camera video because the video depicted cust odial interrogation when appellant wa s not given her Miranda warnings.
When parts of a recording are inadmissible, and other parts are admissible, error is not preser ved if the objection does not specifically point out which portion
is inadmissible. Whitak er v. State , 286 S.W.3d. 355, 369 (Te x. Crim. App. 2009). A trial court is not obligated to search through the evidence and remove “ all of the
inadmissible references so that the recorded statements only contained the
admissible evidence. ” Id

. Here, the body camera video is about fifty

- four m inutes and shows Officer Torres and appellant as Officer Torres completes his investigation of the theft. Appellant argued six minutes of the body camera vi deo was inadmissible because she claimed she was in custodial interrog ation without having received her
Miranda rights, but did not specify which portion of the video was inadmissible in her objection 1

. MR. HUGHES: Okay. Your Honor, it is our position that parts of the video, by no means, all, in fac t, it's probably only about six minutes by my calculat ion. It's the Defense's position that the questioning of Officer Torres questioning Ms. Musante co nstitu tes custodial interrogation. It's our position that she was, in fact, in custody. She was not free to leave, and that Miranda warnings were not given pr ior to that questioning beginning. So, for that reason, we would argue that it's not admissible pu rsuant to 38.22 Section 3 because the Miranda warnings weren't given; and as a result, it will also be i nadmissible pursuant to Section 38.23 because it was a legal

– THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. A legal what? MR. HUGHES: Illegally obtained.

1 It is impossib le to tell which six minutes appellant is referring to after viewing the entire body camera video.7

Thus, the error was not preserved because appellant did not specify which part of the reco rding she believed was i nadmissible. We over rule a p pellant’s
second point of e rror

. CONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s / T racy Christ opher
Chief Justice

Panel consists of Ch ief Ju stice Chr istopher, and Justices Bourliot and Hassan
Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App . P. 47.2( b).