C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

L UI S ESTR EL L A, Ap pe lla nt, V. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 01 73 -C R

Appea l from the 409th District Court of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 2006D04732)

O P I N I O N This is an appea l from a c onviction of the off ense of indece ncy

with a child. He w as sentenc ed to 10 y ear s’ incar cer ation, suspended f or 10 year s’ of c ommunity supervision. On appea l, Mr. Estrella a

rgues the trial c ourt err ed in re fusing to allow the def ense to a dmit a writing in i ts e nti re ty

to i mpe a c h a

wi tne ss a nd that th e State ma de an im pr op e r j ur y argume nt. Ap pe lla nt w a s tr ie d f

or a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult of a c hil d. Duri ngthe tr ia l, d e fe ns e counsel a sked Mrs. Stever ding, the mother of the c hild, to review De fenda nt’s Ex hibit 1, a letter. I n the letter, Mr s. Steverding denied that she had a se x ual af fair w ith Appellant. Mrs. Steverding stated that she lied in the letter about the af

fair. D efe nse counse l beg an to question Mr s. Ste ve rd inga

bo ut what th e le tte r c on ta ine d r e g ard ingthe c ir c ums tanc e s o f h e r m arr ia g e to her husba nd at which point the State objec ted. Counsel for both sides and the trial court dis c us se d w he the r t

he le tte r s ho uld

be a dmi tte d. De fe ns e c ouns e l a sk e d w he the r t he State wanted him to re dact e very thing, but that one pa

rag raph. A t the end of the discussion, counsel-2-

for the de fense stated that “[w]e’ll deal with it later.” The followingday at trial, a r edac ted version of the letter wa s offe red w ith no objection from the State. An unr edac ted ver sion was
o f f e r e d an d a dm i t t e d f o r a p p e l l a t e p u r

p o s e s o n l y. I n I ssu e On e , App e lla

nt a rgue s th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in re fu sin g to a dmi t a

wr iti ngin i ts entirety to impeach a

State witness. On cr oss-examination of Mrs. Steverding , counsel for the defe nse beg an lay

ing pr edicate for a

letter wr itten by

the witness, which discusse d her relationship wit h Appellant and he r re lationship with her husband. Howe ver, the letter wa s never offe red f or admission into evidence . To prese rve e rror for a ppellate r eview, the complaining party must make a timely , specific objection or re quest and obtain a n adver se ruling
. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 33 .1 (a ); W

ils on v . S tate , 71 S.W .3d 346, 349 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). The proponent of e x cluded e vidence must also have made the substance of the off ere d evidenc e known to the cour

t throug h a bill of exception or offe r of pr oof, unless the substanc e is appa rent from the c ontext in which the evide nce w as off ere d. SeeT EX .R.E V ID . 103(a) (2). The rec ord does not show wher e the letter was a ctually

proff ere d or whe re the trial court e ntere d a ruling denying the admission of the letter into evidenc e. As such, A ppellant has not shown the tria l court pre vented him admitting the e vidence
. Ites v . S tate , 923 S.W .2d 675, 678 (Tex.App.-- Houston [1s t Dist.] 1996, pet. re f’d) . Havingfailed to make a spec ific re quest and obtain a n adver se ruling , Appellant has f ailed to pre serve err or. T EX .R.A PP .P. 33 .1 (a ). I ssu e On e is
overr uled. I n I ssue Two, Appe llant argues the State made an improper jury argument, which re sulted in a n unf a ir ve rd ic t be ingre a c he d. I n h is b ri e f, Ap pe lla nt s e ts o ut t

he sta nd ard of re vie w f or thi s issue, but fails to apply

the law to the f

acts a s require d under the appellate rules. See-3-

T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.1. The brief does not state what the improper a rgument was, or where it may be fo un d in the re c or d. We f

ind he ha s f a ile d to a de qu a te ly

br ie f t his iss ue , a

nd e rr or , if any , is waived. Se e Swe ar inge n v . S tate , 1 01 S.W. 3d

89 , 1 00 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ). I ssu e Tw o is
overr uled. Havingoverr

uled both issues raised by Appellant, we aff

irm the judg ment of the trial
c ourt . J uly 15, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. (Do Not Publish)