### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 9 -00 325 -CR

Do ugl as Euge ne Ca r ne s II I , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF COM AL COUNTY NO. 2008 -CR- 0339 , HO NORAB LE CHARLES A. STEP HENS , II , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Doug las Eug ene Ca

rnes I I Iwas c onvicted of dr iving while intoxicated (“ DWI ”). See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 49.04 (West 2003)
. The conviction was Carnes’ s second for DWI , which made it a Class A misdemea nor. Se e id . § 49.09 (West Supp. 2009). Puni shment was asse ssed at 300 day s’ conf

inement in Comal County jail. Carnes appea ls, a rg uing that the trial court e rre d by admitting a pr ejudicial videotape into evidence and then r efusing to gran t a m i s t ri al after the tape ta int e d th e jur

y . We wi ll a ff

ir m.
F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND Ca r n e s w a s a r

r e s te d for DWI a

n d p le a d e d n o t gu il ty
. H e h a d

o n e p r e v io u s D WI conviction. During trial, the State offe red into evide nce a videotape of

a discussion betwe en Carne s and the of fice r who a

rre sted him. The videotape had bee n rec orded by the officer’ s in-ca r ca mera at the sce ne of Car

nes’s a rre st. Defe nse coun s el re q uested a bench c onfer ence and informe d theThe letter identified the portions that should be re dacte d by noting the time stamps that 1 wer e display ed on the video w hen they occurre d
. Fo r ex ample, the letter reque sted reda ction of “Criminal history info at 10:42:23 ending at 10:44:34.” The e dited video shown in court a lso bore tim e sta mps . 2 court that the vide otape wa s an edited version of a longe r video. Def ense counsel stated that he had only seen the longe r ver sion of the video. Af ter watching the long er ve rsion, defe nse counse l had
se nt t he Sta te a

le tte r a sk ingit t o reda ct ce rt a in a ud io p or tio ns be fo re int

ro du c ingthe ta

pe int o
ev i d ence . T h e St a te s ig n e d a w r itte n a g r e e me n t t o d o s o , b u t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l e xp r e s s e d

c o n cer n 1 that he had not ve rified that the r edac tions wer e carrie d over into the edited ve rsion of the tape the Sta te wa s o ff

e ri ngint o e vid e nc e . T he pa rt ie s a g re e d to re so lve the sit uation by su bm it ti ngthe ir
re da c tio n a g re e me nt w iththe un de rs tand ing that de fe ns e c ouns e l wo uld inf or m the c ourt

if the Sta te play ed any

audio portion it had ag ree d to reda ct. With t hat understanding , defe nse counse l stated that he had no obje ction to the tape be ing introduc ed into evidenc e.

T h e c o u rta d m i t t e d

t h e t a p e i n t o e v i d e n c e , an d t h e S t a t e b e g a n p l a yi n g i t f o r t h e j u r y. Def ense c o u n s e l s o o n a s k e d f o r th e ju r y to b e r e mo v e d f

r o m th e c o u rtr o o m a n d th e n mo ved for a mistrial “based on some c omments that w er e m ad e [ o n the video] that were supposed to be excluded” under

the par ties’ redaction agr eeme nt. Def ense counsel claimed that during the portion of the video the State had just play ed, “you will hear my client, after som e descriptive [ sic] by the tr oo pe r, he say s, ‘We ll, la st t ime I ’— a nd it’ s c le a r wh a t c on te xt i t is, the jur y ’s g oin g to be a

ble to perc eive that last time I

was a rre sted or last DWI and that wa s not supposed to be in the rec ord.” The court de nied the motion for mistrial, stating that it wa s not c lear what Carnes meant by “last time” on the tape.Carnes does not make this argument on appea l. That is to say , he does not c laim that the 2 State violated the par

ties’ re dact i o n agreement by playing a

portion of the videotape that it had ag ree d not to. 3

The c ourt rec alled the jury , and the State re sumed playing the video. Def ense c ounsel
a g a in r e qu e ste d a ben c h co nf e re nc e . He c omp la ine d tha t in the po rt ion of the vid e o ju st p lay e d h is
c lie nt h a d o nc e a g a in r e fe rr e d to “ la st t ime .” Th e c ourt no te d th a t Ca

rn e s h a d not fi le d a

mot ion to suppress the videota

pe and that in any

event, judg ing by the time stamps display ed on the videotape , the complained- of statement oc curr ed duringa portion of the videotape that defe nse counsel ha d not asked the State to red ac t
. De fense counsel a ppear ed to conc ede the latter point, althoug h he sug g ested that may

be the time-stamps on the video shown in c ourt did not match the time-stamps
on the lon g e r v ide o th a t he ha d u se d a s th e ba sis fo r h is r e da c tio n r e qu e sts
. De fe ns e c ouns e l a g a in 2 moved for a

mistrial, and the cour

t ag ain denied the motion. The trial pr ocee ded. At one point, Carnes introduced into e vidence a police re cord that show e d he wa s bei ng c ha rg e d with “ DWI - 2nd Of

fe ns e .” Th e jur

y ult imate ly

c on vic te d Ca

rn e s. He no w a pp e a ls.
STA ND AR D O F RE VI EW We reviewa tri al co u rt ’s decision to admit or exclude evidenc e under an abuse of discretion standa

rd. Gr e e n v. Sta te , 934 S.W .2d 92, 101-02 (Te x . Crim. App. 1996). A trial cour t does not abuse its discre tion by admitting evide nce if its decision to do so is rea sonable. Id . (citing Mo ntgom e ry

v . S tat e , 810 S.W .2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (op. on re h’g )).Under som e ci rc u m s t ance s, a par ty can pr eser

ve er ror de spite uttering the phra se “no 3 objection” at trial. See, e .g. , Fi e rro v . S tat e , 969 S.W .2d 51, 55 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.) (def endant pr eser

ved er ror de spite saying “ no objection” be cause he “did something to indicate he rea lly did have a

n objection” e ither conte mporane ously or immediately afte rwa

rds). This exception does not apply

here beca use Carne s’s s ta

te me nt of “no objec tion” was une quivocal, and Ca rnes made it after voic ing c oncer

ns and ag ree ing to a ddress them by filing the reda ction ag ree ment. Cf. id
. I t is worth noti n g t h at wh ile defe nse counse l initi ally voiced some misg ivings a bout 4 introducing the tape into evide nce, he di d not actua lly lodge an unequivocal obj ection. R ather , he state d, “ [m]y on ly c on c e rn is if I do n’ t ob je c t to thi s a

nd the n it’ s g ot e ve ry

thi ng [on it that the State ag ree d to reda ct]—” to which the cour t replied, “I f y o u h av e an ag ree ment, if y ou want to put the a g re e me nt o n th e re c or d, if [the Sta te] vio la te [s] the a g re e me nt, we c a n d e a l w ithit. ” De fe ns e counsel re sponded by

stating, “Why don’t we do that. We’ll make a quick ag ree ment.” Af ter the 4 DI SCU SSIO N Carnes r aises two points of er ror. F irst, he ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed by admitting the videotape into evidenc e because he objected t o its admission and the c ourt neither g ave him a c ha nc e to r e vie w the ta

pe befo re it s a dmi ssi on

no r r e qu ir e d th e Sta te to r e sp on d to his objection “with a proper exception.” Second, he argues that the trial court err ed by ref using to gr ant a mistrial beca

use the portions of the ta pe in which he s ai d “last t ime” we re “ evidenc e of othe r crimes, wr ong s or acts” that should have be en excluded under rules of e vidence 404(b) a nd 403 and a motion in lim ine that Carne s filed.

W e b e l i e v e t h a tb o t h o f t h e s e ar g u m e n t s ar e u n a v a i l i n g f o r t h e s a m e r e a s o n

— n a m e l y, Carnes did not pre serve an objec tion to the admission of the videotape. After the court a cce pted the parties’ reda ction ag ree ment, defe nse counse l stated without qualification that he had “no objec tion” to t he a dmi ssi on

of th e vid e ota

pe . I t is a xiomatic that “ a ff ir ma tiv e a c c e pta

nc e of pr e vio us ly challeng ed evide nce w aives a ny err or in its admission.” J on es v. Stat e , 833 S.W .2d 118, 126 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 92). Thus, Carnes w aived a ny misgiving s he mig ht have voice d befor e the 3 court a dmitted the videotape. 4parties made an ag ree ment, defe nse counse l stated t hat he had “no objection” to admitting the tape.

This exchang e does not satisfy the rule pe rtaining t o p re servation of err or. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a) (to prese rve error , party must make objection, state g round for it, and either obta in a ruling or objec t to court’s re fusal to make a ruling ). 5 I n any event, e ven if Carnes had prese rved an objection to a dmitti ng the videotape , he later waived it by

introducing police re cords that include d the same alleg edly harmful infor mation
reve aled by

the videotape —namely , that Carnes ha d a pre vious DWI arr est. See L eda y v. S tat e , 983 S.W .2d 713, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (“I t is well settle d i n t h i s s t at e that the e rrone ous admission of testimony

is not cause fo r re versa l, if the same f act is prove n by

other testimony

not ob je c te d to .” ); W

om blev . S

tat e , 618 S.W .2d 59, 62 (Tex. Crim. App
. 1 9 8 1 ) (“ When a def endant offe rs the same testimony as that objec ted to, or the same ev i d en ce i s i n troduce d from anothe r
source , without objection, t he defenda nt is not in posit ion to complain on appea l.”). Thus, Car nes’s iss ue s are wi tho ut m e ri t.
CO NC LU SION

F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , w e a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: Nove mber 3, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh