NO. 07-04-0365-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D DECEMBER 13, 2004

______________________________ BALTIMOR E RAMIRE Z, Appellant

v. THE STA

TE OF TEX

AS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 222 ND DISTRICT COURT OF DEAF SMITH COUNTY ; NO. CR-03J-151; HON. ROLAND SAUL, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Before QUINN, REAVIS, and CAMPBELL, JJ. Appellant

Baltimo re Ramirez challenges his conviction of sexual assault of achild. Through one issue, he contends that the trial court erred in not permitting him to voir d ire the jury panel on a particular condition of probation, that condition being the requirement that sex offe nders reg ister wit h local authorities. We affirm the judgment of the tri al court. During voir dire, the following exchange took place at the bench: MR. S PRIGGS: Your Honor, I wonder if they filed a motion regardin g registrat ion and the prose cution went over - - [THE STATE]: You need to talk where they can’t hear you.2

MR. SPRIGGS: And the prosecution went over the probation, and that ’s a condition of probation, registration is a part of that. I thi nk i t’s the sa me situation aboutregistra tion as i t is with the prob ation. T hat’s cer tainly apart, and they opened t he door t hrough th at. THE COUR

T: How di d that op en the do or? MR. SPRIGGS: They asked the jury, di d they know the conditions of probatio n. That would be a condit ion of pr obation. NowI need to

know wh ether or n ot they would con sider tha t, or how they wou ld consi der it. THE COURT: I think you are entitled to talk about the condi tions of probation. What is your position? [THE STATE]: Our position, Your Honor, is that tha t is nota decision that they can base any decision on sexu al registration requirement. And since they do n ot have a ny beari ng on tha t, it woul d not be appropri ate and - - [THE STATE]: Yo ur Hon or, anoth er thing is, it’s the law, you are n ot to mention that, that’s the law, just conditions of probation, it’s the law and you could order him to counseling and treatment and that kind of thing, but once you mention the probation, that this is not technically

correct, and that’s the law, and you have to do t hat regardless. We have no problem with him talking about the conditions of probation, what probation is about an d all tha t, but it’s not a con dition of probati on to reg ister. Th at’s the law. MR. SPRIGGS: Your

Honor, itsays in the probation that you can’t commit no other crimes against the U.S., and also that’s the law, and that’s a condition that he mu st obey. If, in fac t, he is convicted of this c rime, it d o e s become a part of th e condit ions of pr obation. THE COURT: So you want to talk about every possi ble offense someone could co mmit? MR

. SPRIGGS: No, sir. What I want to talk about is that speci fic conditio n because that’s mandatory. THE COURT: I don’t believe that’s - - I don’t believe you can go into that, and I’m not go ing to al low you to. MR. SPRIG GS: Okay. I just wan t to put i t on the r ecord.3

Appellant

contends , before u s, that heshould have bee n allow ed to questi on the jur y regarding the requirement to register as a sex offe nder. Yet, we note that omitted from the exchange between the trial court and defense counsel (as well as the record) was mention of any parti cular qu estions counsel s ought to pose toth e venire. This is fatal because it is not enough to inform the trial court of a particular topic on which one hopes to conduct voir dire. Rather, the particular question or questions that the litigant intends to ask must be disclosed to preserve any complaint about the trial court’s rulin g. Sells v. State , 121 S.W.3d 748, 756 (Tex . Crim. Ap p.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 986, 124 S.Ct. 511, 157 L.Ed.2d 378 (2003); Mohamm ad v. Sta te, 127 S.W.3 d 163, 17 0 (Tex. A pp.–Hous ton [1 st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d). Since that was not done here, we overrule the issue. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Per Curiam
Do not pu blish.