# IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S

N O . P D - 1 5 0 2 - 1 1
SEAN CHRIST OP HER BREWE R, Appellant

v. THE S TATE O F TEXAS
ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW F ROM THE TH IRD COURT OF AP P EALS,

TRAVIS COUNTY
W omack , J., delive red the opinion of the Court, in w hich Keller, PJ., and M eye rs, Price, Keasler, Herv ey, Coc hran, and Alcala, JJ., joined. J ohnson, J., conc urred. The a ppellant was c onvicted of dr iving while intoxicated. The Third Court of A ppeals 1



## reve rsed the c onviction and re manded f or a ne w trial. The State pe titioned for discre tionary

2 

## revie w of two g rounds: Did the appe llant preser ve his complaint for a

ppeal? I f he did, did the

S e e T E X . P E N A L C O D E § 4 9
. 0 4 ( a )
. 1 B r e w e r v . S t a t e , N o . 0 3

- 1 0

- 0 0 0 7 6

- C R , 2 0 1 1 T e x . A p p . L E X I S 7 2 7 4 ( T e x . A p p . – A u s t i n A u g . 3 1 , 2 0 1 1 ) 2 ( n o t d e s i g n a t e d f

o r p u b l i c a t i o n )
.

## 2

trial court e rr by

commenting on the appe llant’s failure to testify at trial? We gr anted r eview. We hold that the complaint was not prese rved f or appe al. Ther efor e we shall reve rse the Court of Appea ls’s judgme nt and re mand the ca se to that Court so that it may consider the appellant’ s other cla ims of error
. I . Trial Court The a ppellant’s ca

r ra n into the rea

r of a nother c ar. The driver of

that car g ot out and called the police. The appellant r emained in his ca r, with the eng ine still running, until an offic er
arr ived. The of

fice r noticed tha

t the appellant e x hibited signs of intoxi cation, and the appellant told the office r he ha d been dr inking f or seve ral hours. A fter the appellant r efuse d to perfor m field sobriety

tests and to provide a

blood or breath sample, he wa s arr ested for driving while intox icated. At trial, the State implied that the appe llant left his car running beca

use he intende d to flee the sce ne. De fense counsel a ttempted to cross-e x amine the pa sseng er in the othe r ca r about the re ason that the a

ppellant kept his eng ine running . Counsel sought to sug g est that the appe llant may have ke pt the eng ine runningso as to keep the car ’s hea ter func tioning. The State objected, and the tria l court aske d defe nse counse l where he wa s g oing w ith his l ine of que stioning. [DEFENSE COUNSEL

1]: I ’m try ing to show tha t [ the appe llant] had his ca r running beca use it was cold, a

nd his heater

was on not bec ause he was try ing to — THE COURT: Well, I assume he c ould testify to that, couldn’t he? 3 

## [DEFENSE COUNSEL

2]: Objection. [DEFENSE COUNSEL

1]: I ’m sorry ?

T h e a p p e l l a n t a l l e g e d i n b o t h h i s m o t i o n f o r m i s t r i a l a n d h i s m o t i o n f o r n e w t r i a l t h a t t h e j u d g e p o i n t e d t o 3 h i m w h e n u s i n g t h e w o r d “ h e . ”

## 3

THE COURT: Are y ou asking this witness to go ahe ad and ... spe culate a s to what was in his mind or what he wa s doing? Your c lient? [DEFENSE COUNSEL

1]: No, I ’m not calling for spe culation. I t’s prese nt sense impression ....

... THE COURT: L et’s move on, then. At the conc lusion of the passeng er’ s testimony , defe nse counse l moved for a mistrial beca use of “ the Court’s commenting on the def endant testify

ing [ sic ], t hat he c ould testify as to what wa s g oing on tha t evening .” Af ter the c ourt denied the motion, the appellant aske d for permission to submit a wr itten brief in support of the motion, to which the court re plied, “Well, y ou can do tha t later.” When the State rested, the appellant pr esente d the cour t with a hand-w ritten motion reque sting e ither a mistrial or, in the a lternative, a written instruction to the jury to disreg ard the court’s c omments. The cour t ag ain denied the appellant’ s motion, st ating , “You unde rstand that’s g oing to be corr ecte d and cove red a s far as in the cha

rg e, rig ht? ... They ’re instructed [that] they
are not to consider in any way , form, or f

ashion [that] he is not testify ing ....” The a ppellant was f

ound g uilty

of driving while intox icated. I I . Court of Appea ls On appe al, the Third Court of A ppeals he ld that the appellant’ s actions wer e suff icient to prese rve the err or for

appellate revie w, althoug h the appe llant did not “follow the ty pical objection patter

n.” The Court of Appe als found that, cumulatively , the appe llant’s actions met 4

B r e w e r , 2 0 1 1 T e x . A p p . L E X I S 7 2 7 4
. 4

## 4

the re quirements for

prese rvation. Holding that the trial cour t erre d in deny ing the appellant’ s reque st for a c urative instruc tion, the Court of Appea ls rever sed the trial c ourt’s judg ment and
rema nded the c ase f

or a ne w trial without addre ssing the a ppellant’s other

claims of er

ror. I I I . Discussion We do not ag ree with the Court of Appea ls’s determination that the a ppellant pre serve d his point of error

for r eview. To prese rve a

complaint for a

ppellate r eview, the complaining party must make a timely , specific reque st that the trial court re fuses. I n the instant case , the appe llant complained thre e 5 

## times of the trial cour

t’s comment on his failure to testify . The fir st complaint occurr ed during the cr oss-examination of the passeng er. The appellant did not state g rounds for his objec tion, and the trial cour

t did not rule on the objection. This was insufficie nt to preser ve er ror. 6 7 

## The a ppellant’s sec ond complaint was in a motion for a mistrial at the end of the passeng er’ s testimony . The a ppellant did not reque st a curative instruction before moving f or a mistrial — a choice that forf eited appe llate re lief for

an er ror that c ould have be en cur ed by such an instruction. 8 

## The third complaint wa s made a fter the testimony of the State’s f

inal witness. The

Y o u n g v . S t a t e , 1 3 7 S
. W
. 3 d 6 5 , 6 9 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c i t i n g T E X . R
. A P P . P
. 3 3
. 1 ( a ) )
. 5 S e e S t e v e n s v . S t a t e , 6 7 1 S
. W
. 2 d 5 1 7 , 5 2 1 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) ( a n i n s t r u c t i o n b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o “ m o v e 6 o n ” i s n o t a r u l i n g )
.

S e e 4 3 A G e o r g e E
. D i x & J o h n M
. S c h m o l e s k y , T e x a s P r a c t i c e : C r i m i n a l P r a c t i c e a n d P r o c e d u r e § 7 5 3 : 6 5 ( 3 d e d
. 2 0 1 1 ) ( “ F o r e x a m p l e , m e r e l y a r t i c u l a t i n g a n i n t e n t i o n t o o b j e c t

– ‘ I o b j e c t ! ’

– i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t ” ) ( c i t i n g N o r r i d v . S t a t e , 9 2 5 S
. W
. 2 d 3 4 2 , 3 5 0 ( T e x . A p p . – F o r t W o r t h 1 9 9 6 ) )
.

O c o n v . S t a t e , 2 8 4 S
. W
. 3 d 8 8 0 , 8 8 6

- 8 8 7 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ A n a p p e l l a n t w h o m o v e s f o r a m i s t r i a l 8 w i t h o u t f

i r s t r e q u e s t i n g a l e s s d r a s t i c a l t e r n a t i v e f o r f e i t s a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f t h a t c l a s s o f e v e n t s t h a t c o u l d h a v e b e e n c u r e d b y t h e l e s s e r r e m e d y . ” )
.

## 5

appellant pr esente d the cour t with a hand-w ritten motion requesting either a mistrial or, in the alterna tive, a wr itten instruction to the jury to disreg ard the court’s c omments. This request wa s clea rly not timely , and thus was insuff icient to prese rve e rror . None of the three complaints met the requir ements for prese rvation. The a

ppellant ar g ues, howeve r, that bec ause, in sum, the trial c ourt was g iven “the oppor tunity to cure the alleg ed
err or,” the delay

in objection was pe rmissible. I n so doing, the appellant c onfuses the r ationale for the timely

objection re quirement with the re quirement itself. The Court of Appe als seems to 9 

## have a cquiesc ed to the appe llant’s arg uments, combining a ll three c omplaints in order to hold that the appe llant’s actions we re suf ficient to mee t the require ments of a timely , specific reque st that is refuse d by

the trial cour

t. This was err or. We do not combine complaints to meet the require ments for pre serva tion; we view ea ch complaint individually , and, in the instant ca se, it is clea r that the re quirements for prese rvation we re not met.

I V. Conclusion The Court of Appe als err ed in holding tha t the appellant’ s complaint was pre serve d for appea l. We rever se the judg ment of the Court of Appe als and re mand the ca se to that Court so that it may

consider the appellant’ s other cla ims of error
. Deliver ed June 6, 2012. Publis h.

S e e H o l l i n s v . S t a t e , 8 0 5 S
. W
. 2 d 4 7 5 , 4 7 6 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) ( “ T h e p u r p o s e o f a t i m e l y o b j e c t i o n i s t o

9 g i v e t h e t r i a l j u d g e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c u r e e r r o r . ” )
.