COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00076-CR

VINCENT PRICE MCCOWAN, JR. 

A/K/A VINCENT PRICE MCCOWAN

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

I. INTRODUCTION

In two points, Appellant Vincent Price McCowan, Jr. a/k/a Vincent Price 

McCowan appeals his conviction for assault causing bodily injury to a family or 

household member with a prior conviction, a third-degree felony. See Tex. Penal 

Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(2)(A) (West 2011). We will affirm.

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

McCowan and Tuluara Ford had been dating for two or three years and 

living together when on December 25, 2009, they were involved in a domestic 

dispute that led to McCowan’s prosecution in this cause. According to Ford, the 

argument began when they were at McCowan’s mother’s house on Christmas 

Eve. Ford said something to McCowan, who was “in one of his moods,” and

McCowan “raise[d] his hand to” Ford, but his brother stopped him from hitting 

her. After Ford and McCowan returned home, they began arguing about the 

television, and McCowan slapped Ford’s face, causing her ear to ring. The two 

continued arguing, and McCowan hit Ford’s face and head; Ford hit McCowan 

back. During the struggle, Ford reached for her cell phone to call the police, and 

they wrestled over the phone; McCowan fractured Ford’s pinky finger and broke 

her phone.

Sometime after the two had cooled off, McCowan wanted to have sex with 

Ford, and when Ford refused, McCowan urinated on her while she lay in bed. 

After Ford showered, McCowan got in her face and headbutted her. McCowan 

told Ford that he wanted her to hit him, and when Ford pushed him, they started 

fighting again. When Ford realized that McCowan was too strong for her, she 

gave up and went to the living room to check on her daughter, but McCowan 

dragged Ford to the bathroom by her hair, causing some of her hair to come out, 

and kicked her side.
3

Later, Ford tried to use the computer to contact someone, but McCowan 

dropped part of the computer on the floor. After McCowan left the apartment, 

Ford found an old cell phone and managed to contact her cousin. Ford’s mother 

and the police showed up later.

Ford testified at trial that in addition to a broken finger, she suffered 

contusions on her arms and head caused by McCowan and could not use her 

right hand for a while. Ford also confirmed that McCowan had pleaded guilty to 

assaulting her on October 26, 2007, and she described some of the facts 

underlying that conviction.

McCowan’s version of events differed from Ford’s. He testified that Ford

attacked him with a razor while he was showering because she had discovered 

that he was cheating on her. McCowan claimed that he did not cause any of 

Ford’s injuries and that he was the victim. During his cross-examination, 

McCowan mentioned that a Houston police officer had identified him as a 

member of a particular gang based on his tattoos, but he denied any current 

gang involvement. The State later called a rebuttal witness who testified that 

McCowan’s tattoos are commonly associated with one particular gang.

A jury convicted McCowan and assessed his punishment at seven years’ 

confinement.
4

III. PRESERVATION OF ERROR

A. Gang Tattoos Testimony

In his first point, McCowan argues that the trial court’s admission of 

irrelevant testimony regarding gang tattoos on his body deprived him of his due 

process and due course of law rights under the federal and state constitutions.

A complaint made on appeal must comport with the complaint made in the 

trial court or the error is forfeited. Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2012); Lovill v. State, 319 S.W.3d 687, 691–92 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2009) (“A complaint will not be preserved if the legal basis of the complaint raised 

on appeal varies from the complaint made at trial.”). To determine whether the 

complaint on appeal comports with that made at trial, we consider the context in 

which the complaint was made and the parties’ shared understanding at that 

time. Clark, 365 S.W.3d at 339; Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308, 313 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2009). Constitutional errors are generally forfeited by failure to object 

at trial. Clark, 365 S.W.3d at 339 (“[I]f a party fails to properly object to 

constitutional errors at trial, these errors can be forfeited.”); Curry v. State, 910 

S.W.2d 490, 496 & n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); see Anderson v. State, 301 

S.W.3d 276, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“[N]umerous constitutional rights, 

including those that implicate a defendant’s due process rights, may be forfeited 

for purposes of appellate review unless properly preserved.”). Further, to 

preserve error, a party must continue to object each time the objectionable 

evidence is offered. Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); 
5

Martinez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (citing Ethington v. 

State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).

Here, when the State called the witness to testify about McCowan’s 

purported gang tattoos, McCowan objected that the testimony was more 

prejudicial than probative, presumably under rule 403. And when the State 

sought to admit photographs of McCowan’s tattoos, he asserted a relevance 

objection. In neither instance did McCowan assert a due process or due course 

of law objection. McCowan also failed to continue objecting to the testimony

about his tattoos, and he did not obtain a running objection or request a hearing 

outside the presence of the jury. McCowan thus failed to preserve this first point 

for appellate review. See Clark, 365 S.W.3d at 339; Lovill, 319 S.W.3d at 691–

92. We overrule McCowan’s first point.

B. October 26, 2007 Judgment and Sentence and Underlying Facts

In his second point, McCowan argues that he was denied his right to not 

be tried as a criminal in general because, although he stipulated to his 

October 26, 2007 conviction for assault–family violence, the trial court admitted 

the judgment and sentence and underlying facts of the prior conviction.

If a trial court hears objections to proffered evidence outside the jury’s 

presence and rules that the evidence is admissible, the objections are deemed to 

apply to the evidence when it is admitted before the jury without the necessity of 

repeating the objections. Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(1); Haley v. State, 173 S.W.3d 

510, 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Geuder, 115 S.W.3d at 13–14; Ethington, 819 
6

S.W.2d at 859. However, appellate review of a trial court’s ruling on the 

admissibility of evidence made outside a jury’s presence is forfeited if the 

defendant affirmatively asserts that he has “no objection” when the evidence is 

offered. See James v. State, 772 S.W.2d 84, 97 (Tex. Crim. App.), vacated on 

other grounds, 493 U.S. 885 (1989); see also Tucker v. State, 990 S.W.2d 261, 

263 n.11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Further, any error in the admission of evidence 

is cured when the same evidence is admitted elsewhere without objection. See 

Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

Here, at a pretrial hearing, McCowan objected when the State offered 

State’s Exhibit 2, the judgment and sentence for the 2006 conviction, but when 

the State offered the same exhibit at trial, McCowan stated, “No objection.” As 

for McCowan’s argument about the admission of the underlying facts of the 2006 

conviction, he asserted an objection when the State began to elicit that testimony 

from Ford, but the State had already elicited similar testimony without objection 

from Ford’s mother. For these reasons, McCowan failed to preserve his second 

point for appellate review. See James, 772 S.W.2d at 97; see also Lane, 151 

S.W.3d at 193. We overrule McCowan’s second point.
7

IV. CONCLUSION

Having overruled McCowan’s two points, we affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.

BILL MEIER

JUSTICE

PANEL: GARDNER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 16, 2013