NO. 07-07 -008 1-CR; 07-07 -008 2-CR; 07-07 -008 3-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A FEB RU ARY20, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ ALB ANO VAS QUEZ BADIL LO, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 22 3 RD DI ST RI CT COU RT OF G RAY COUN T Y; NO S. 7 059, 7060, 7061; HO NO RA BLE D AVID GLE ASON , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellantAlban o Vasque zB adillo app eals f rom his convictions for resisting arrest and as s a u l to n a p u b l i cs e r v a n ta n d t h e re s u l t i n g s e n t e n c e s o f 1 8 0 d a y s o f c o n fi n ement in the G ra y

C ounty Ja il for e ach re si sti ng ar re st offense, and confine ment for a per iod of fiv e y ears i n the Tex as Dep artment of C ri minal Ju sti ce Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion , probated for fi v e y ea rs , an d a fi ne o f $5 00 0 for t he o ffens e of a s s au l t on a p ub l i cs er v an t. W e affi r m.See T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 22. 01(b )(1) (Verno n 200 3 & Sup p. 2007 ). T his is a 1 thi rd deg re e felony

puni shabl e by

i mpri sonmenti n the i nst it uti onal di v is ion for any ter m of not more tha n 10 y ears o r les s than 2 y ears a nd a fine notto ex ceed $10,000
. Tex . Pe nal Cod e Ann. § 12 .34 ( Ver non 200 3)
. S ee T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 38. 03 (Ve rnon 200 3). Th is is a Class A 2 mis demeanor puni shabl e by a fine not to ex ceed $4,000, confine ment in jai l for a ter m not to exceed one y ear , or

both . Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 12.21 (V er non 200 3)
. At tr ial , a w it ness tes ti fied she cal led pol ic e and re por ted a tr uck

w as “mak ing a l ot 3 of dust and s pin nin g donut s a nd i t was jus t g oin g crazy .” The w it ness ’s father tes ti fied th e v ehicle h it his fe nce, causing app rox ima tely $60 0 dam age to the fence . One of the truck’s li cens e pl ates ca me off , on or near the fence. Late r t e s t im ony indicate d the smoke came f rom th e tires of app ellant ’s truck 4 spi nni ng on t he pav ement. 2 Backg ro und By three indictm ent s, app ellantwas cha rg ed wi th th ree sepa rate of fense s o f assau lt on a pub lic serv ant . At trial, app ellantw as foun d guilty of a ssault on a pub lic serv antin 1 one c ause and w as found g uil ty in two caus es of t he les ser-i ncl uded offense of res is ti ng ar re st. 2 On appeal , appel lan t does not c hal len g e the su ff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce suppo rt ing his co nv icti ons, so w e reci te on ly thos e facts neces sar y to an understa ndi ng of the i ss ues present ed. Off ic er

Tobie Bi as tes ti fied he re spond ed to a c all reg ardin g a v ehi cl e ac ci dent in Pampa, Tex as, w it h damag e to a fence a nd o th er proper ty . W hen enroute to t he 3 scene , Bias w as tw ice red ir e c t e d b y his dispatch er, as po lice receiv ed a not her call conc er nin g an acc ide nt involv ing the same v ehi cl e. Bi as w as g iv en a desc ri pti on of the pick u p a n d i t s l ic ense tag num ber. W hen he reach ed th e area to w hich he w as last d ire ct e d , B ia s sa w “a l o t o f s m o ke ” a n d s a w a tru ckm a tc h in g th e de sc rip ti o n “pu sh in g a

4Eac h of the off ic ers i nv olv ed i n this m atter testi fied that at the ti me theycame in to 5 cont act w ith app ellant , the y were in m arked p atrol cars b earing p olice em blem s, insignia and emerg ency

l ig hts , wear ing p o lic e uni forms a nd badg es, and car ry ing pol ic e- is sued eq uip ment. 3 v ehi cl e up int o a d ri v ew ay of a resi dence . . . .” The off ic er acti v ated his emerg ency l ig hts and pul led up b ehi nd th e tr uck j ustas the dr iv er , l ater i denti fied as appel lan t, ste pped ou t of the truck. 5 The o ffi c e r a p p ro a c h e d a p p e l l a n t , t e l l i n g h i m fi rs t t o “ C o me h e re . S t o p.” W hen appel lan t di d notrespon d, B ias sw it ched to S pani sh, sa y ing “ Aq ui. ” Appel lan t s ti ll di d not re spond and entered th e resi dence w it h other peopl e w ho had been in the f ro nt y ard of the home. The off ic er

foll ow ed appe ll ant, re peati ng both “ sto p” and “a q ui” but appel lan t di d not sto p or respon d. B ias foll ow ed appe ll ant t hroug h the open door of the resi dence . During their encou nte r inside the residence , Bias aske d ap pellan t if he h ad a driv er’s li cens e. Appel lan t ans w ered affirmat iv ely but woul d not let t he officer se e hi s l ic ense. As the o ff ic er and appel lan t w ent toward the ki tch en from another area of the resi dence , t he of f icer noticed the “overw helm ing smell of alcoho l” emitting f rom appe llant’s pe rson. He obser v ed appe ll ant’ s s peech w as sl ur re d and his ey es w ere bl oodsh ot. D eputy Sc ott Lar ue ar ri v ed as appel lan t and Bi as re ached the ki tch en. Fear ing acces s to a kni fe or other w eapon i n the ki tch en, t he officers a ttempt ed to g ain co ntrol of appell ant’ s h ands, first by ask ing appel lan t t o put his hands behi nd hi s b ack . W hen app ell ant refused, B ias g ra bbed appel lan t’ s a rm. A fig ht en sued, dur ing w hic h off ic ers were inj ured. As off ic ers e sc ortedAppe llant te stif ied a tt h e sup pression hea ring w ith the aid of an inte rpreter. He 6 said th e po lice n ever spo ke to him in t he driv eway a nd no o ne e v er told him to stop or said “aqui.” He a d m it ted to push ing the car into th e driv eway w ith his truck. On crossexamina tion, app ellantadm itted he dran k “some bee rs” before driv ing his pickup and said he was in his tr uck

w hen pol ic e ar ri v ed. 4 appel lan t out of t he re si dence , he ki ck ed Serg eant Al v in Johns on in th e should er . App ellantw as arreste d for DW I and the of fense s g iv ing r ise to this ap pea l. 6 Iss ues Throug h four is sues , app ell ant c ontends : ( 1) the tr ial co urt er re d by deny ing appel lan t’ s mot ion to suppress ; ( 2) the tr ial co urt e rred by ai din g the Stat e i n prov ing i ts burden t o es tabl is h probabl e cause; (3) the tr ial judg e abus ed hi s d is creti on by examini ng the a ppel lan t on his ci ti z enshi p; an d ( 4) the tr ial j udg e c ommented o n t he ev ide nce by tak ing j udi ci al noti ce of a di sput ed fact. Ana lysis Motion to Suppress In ap pel lan t’ s first is sue, he cont ends the tr ial courtabused its disc re ti on i n deny ing h is m o ti o n to su p p re ss . Of f ice r Bi a s a n d a p p e lla n t t e st if ie d atth e su p p re ss io n he a rin g. After hear ing the ev ide nce and c lar ify ing a few poi nts , t he tr ial co urt s tated : As I s ee th e ev ide nce before me at present , Off ic er Bi as, w hen he ar ri v ed at [appel lan t’ s] parents ’ re si dence , obs er v ed th e tr uck

thathe –that matche d the descript ion of

what he w as looking for t hata ppa rently ha d bee n involv ed in w hat was re por

ted t o be damag e to a fence and pos si bly othe r inc ide nts and that he had ev er

y r ig ht t o det ain the dr iv er to further

i n vesti g ate t he si tuation .. .a ll throug h thi s I thi nk the o ff ic er had the r ig ht t o det ain and to5

further i nv est ig ate t he al leg ed i nci dents thathe was in v est ig ati ng ... I t hin k y our moti on to suppress should b e de nie d. .. [t]h e mo tion to supp ress is deni ed. A tr ial co urt’ s rul ing on a motion to suppress is rev iewed for an abuse of dis creti on. Vi ll ar re al v. State, 935 S.W .2d 134, 138 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1996) . A bi furcat ed s tandard of rev iew is applied to a trial court’s ruling on a mo tion to supp ress e v iden ce. Th is stand ard of rev iew g iv es almos t t otal deferen ce to t he tr ial cou rt’s dete rmi nati on of hi sto ri cal facts and app li es a de n ovorev iew of the trial court’s ap plication of th e l a w t o t hose facts. Guz m an v . St ate, 955 S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)
. The tr ial co urt i s t he s ole tr ier of fact, th e judge of

w itness cred ibility , and the de term iner of the weig ht giv en to w itness tes ti mony . Sta te v. Ross, 32 S .W .3d 8 53, 8 55 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)
. The focus of ap pel lan t’ s moti on to suppress was not c lea r but t he tr ial co urt t re ated itas ch all eng ing t h e l awfulness of his ar re st. O n appea l itappears h e i s c ontendi ng the tr ial co urt s houl d hav e g ra nted his moti on to su ppress bec a u se the p oli ce had no re a s o n a b le b a s is t o d e t a in h im o r t o e n t e r t h e re s id e n c e i n p u rs u ito f h im . A c c o rd in gl y, we als o focus on t he l awfulness of the a rrest . A rev i ew i ng c ou rt exam i ne s t he rea s on ab l en es s o f a te mp orar y d et en ti on i n te r ms of t he to tal ity

of the c ircums tanc es. Balenti ne v . St ate, 71 S.W .3d 7 63, 7 68 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 200 2 ). A n i n v estigative deten tion is perm itted und er the Fou rth Am end me nt if it is suppo rt ed by

reason abl e s uspi ci on. Id., ci ti ng T er ry v . O hio , 3 9 2 U . S
. 1, 27 , 88 S.C t. 186 8, 20 L.Ed .2d 889 (1968 ). R easo nab le suspicion is a particu lariz ed and objective basis for s uspecti ng the person detai ned i s, h a s b e e n , o r soon w il l be eng ag ed i n c ri minal6

act iv ity . Cr

ock ett v. State, 803 S.W .2d 308 , 311 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 1). An of f icer’s reas on ab l e s us pi c i on mu s t be ba s ed on ob j ecti v e facts th at th e i nd i v i du al i nvol v ed is involv ed i n c ri minal acti v ity . Id., citi ng D ickey

v. Sta te, 716 S.W .2d 4 99, 5 03, n .4 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 86). Probabl e c ause for an ar re st ex is ts w here pol ic e hav e reason abl y tr ustw orthy infor mati on s uff ic ien t t o war ra nt a re asona ble person to be li ev e tha t a par ti cul ar person has commi tted or

i s c ommit ti n g a n offense. Mc Gee v . St ate, 105 S.W .3d 6 09, 6 14 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) . An off ic er may ente r a resi dence to make a n ar re st w ith o u t a w a r ra n tw h e n e x i g e n tc i rc u ms t a n c e s re q u i re t h e o ffi c e r t o e n t e r w i t h o u tt h e c o n s e n to f a re si dent or a w ar ra nt. Tex . Cod e Cr im. Proc. Ann. art. 14.05 (V er non 200 5) ; Ruev. St ate, 958 S. W .2d 915 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [14 Dis t.] 1997, no pet) . An officer ’s hot pursui t of th an offender s eeki ng to av oid ar re st is an e x ig ent c ircums tanc e j ust ify ing nonc onsen sual entr y i nto t he of

fender’ s resi dence . Id., citi ng C ur ry v. Sta te, 831 S.W .2d 4 85, 4 88 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [14 Di st. ] 199 2, pe t. re f’d) ( off ic ers’ entr y i nto a ppel lan t’ s h ouse w as th prop er w hen of

f icers were in ho t pursuit o f app ellantw ho was attem pting to avoid arrest), quoti ng U nited St ates v. Sant ana, 427 U. S. 3 8, 96 S.Ct. 2406, 49 L.Ed.2 d 300 (1 976) ( “[A] sus pectmay

not defeat an ar re st w hic h has been s et i n moti on i n a p ubl icpl ace . . . by the expedien t of

escap ing to a priv ate place”). Here, O ff ic er

Bi as’ s o bser

v ati on atthat loc ati on of t he tr uck matc hin g the desc ri pti on he was g iv en prov ide d ampl e reason to sus pectthati ts dr iv er had b e en i nv olv ed i n the re ckless driv ing and prop erty dam age reporte d to po lice, particula rly g iv en th e of

f icer’s7

a d d it io n a l o b s e rva t io n o f a p p e ll a n t ’s sm o ky e f

fo rtt o p u s h a n o t h e r ve h ic le u p t h e d ri ve wa y. The off ic er w as enti tl ed to detai n him for further i nv est ig ati on. See Mottley v. State, 841 S.W .2d 5 50, 5 51 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 1 9 9 2 , n o pet. ) (fin din g reason abl e s uspi ci on st for dete ntion in similar situation ). Bias was in a ma rked pa trol car, he h a d activated his em ergency lig hts, and h e w as w earing a p olice un iform . The tr ial co urt was free t o ac cept as true th e of

f icer’s v ersion o f

t h e e ve nts rath er than app ellant ’s v ersion. The trial court al s o w as free t o s ee a pp el l an t’ s fai l ure to res po nd t o th e offi c er ’ s e ffor ts t o de ta i n hi m, coup led w ith ap pellan t’s w alking away tow ard the residence , as giv ing Bias a reason able basis to conclud e ap pellan t w as inte ntion ally ev adin g det ent ion, p rov iding probab le cause for hi s a rrest . SeeTex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. art. 14.01 (V er non 2005) ; Tex . Pe nal C ode Ann. § 38. 04 ( Ver non 200 3) ; Mi ncey v. State, 112 S.W .3d 748, 753 ( Tex .App. –Beaumont 2003, no pet.) (off ic ers c oul d reason abl y co ncl ude, based on t hei r firs t- hand ob ser v ati on of a pp el l an t’ s c on du ct, t ha t ap pe l l an t w as i nt en ti on al l y e v ad i ng d et en ti on w he n, a t th e ti me of f icers appro ache d to spe ak w ith him , app ellantw entinto the hou se, slam me d the doo r, and refused to co me to the door or answer the phone)
. Lik e the c our t i n Rue , we furt her find appe ll ant’ s attempt to ev ade a law ful det enti on was an ex ig ent c ircums tanc e j ust ify ing Of f icer Bias’s entry into a ppe llant’s residen ce. Bias test if ied he was af raid he would “lose track ” of appell ant a nd “ notb e abl e to loc ate h im” i f he al lowed appe ll ant t o g et i nto t he house out of si g ht. Se e R ue, 95 8 S .W .2d at 918 (of f icer sought to lawfu lly deta in d e fend ant ; defend ant ’s attem pt to f lee, requiring off icer to pursue defend antinto his apar tment, w as ex ig ent ci rc umstan ce jus ti fyi ng of ficer ’s entry

into apar

tment) . Unde r the8

totali ty of the c ircums tanc es, the tr ial j udg e di d notabus e hi s d is creti on i n deny ing app ellant ’s motio n to sup press. Mo re ov er , we ag re e al so w it h the Sta te’ s c ontent ion thatappell ant’ s p ro sec uti on for assau lt on a public serv antduring the cou rse of the arrest d oes n ot de pen d on the arrest’s law fu ln e ss . See, e.g., M ar ti nez v. Sta te, 91 S .W .3d 3 31, 3 40 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2002) ; Gonz ale s v . St ate , 574 S.W .2d 135, 137 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1978)( appl y ing ar ti cl e 38. 23 of the C ode of C ri minal Procedu re ); Cooper v. Sta te, 956 S .W .2 d 9 5 , 98 ( Tex .App. –Ty ler 1997, no pet .) ( ag g ra v ated ass aul t on a peac e off ic er ). W it h respect t o the co nv icti ons for re si sti ng arrest , the Penal Code ex pli ci tl y prov ide s t hat t he unl awfulness of the a rresti s n ot a defe n s e t o p ro s e c u t i o n fo r t h a to ffe n s e . T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 3 8 . 0 3 ( b ) ( V e r n on 2003)
. For

thi s reason al so, the tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts d isc re ti o n by deny ing app ellant ’s motio n to sup press. For both thes e reason s, w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s first is sue.
Tr ial C our t’ s Q uest ion s D ur ing Suppr essionHear

ing In ap pel lan t’ s s econd and thi rd i ss ues, he a ss erts the t ri al cour t er re d w hen, dur ing the s uppress ion hear ing , t he j udg e eng ag ed in q uest ion ing of O ff ic er Bi as (i ss ue two) and o f a p p e lla n t (i ss u e th re e ). In iss u e two, ap p e lla n t s p e cif ica lly co m p la in s o f th e fo llo wing: T he Court: I guess I nee d two po ints o f c la ri f ic a t io n, if

you don ’t mind. W hen you s aw

the pic kup pushi ng the other ca r9 up i nto t he dr iv ew ay , was the p ic kup in the d ri v ew ay or w as iton t he s treet? Of f icer Bias: It w as–I t had alread y bee n in the driv eway at an angle

li ke thi s ( ind ic ati ng ) and he w as cont inu ing to pu sh the ve h ic le fa rt h e r i n t o t h e d ri ve wa y. T he Court: All right. A nd w hen you saw [ap pellan t] e xit t h e truck,

he l ooked at y ou and y ou l ooked at him; r ig ht? Of f icer Bias: Yes, sir . T he Cou rt: And y ou to ld him to stop an d y ou to ld him “Aqui”? Of f icer Bias: I told him “St op, co me h ere” and t hen I t old him “Aq ui”

in Spani sh. The Co urt: Oka y . And that’ s all the–t hat’ s a ll o f th e Spanish that

y ou s aid ? Of f icer Bias: Yes, sir . The Co urt: At that poin t in time w ere y ou inv est ig ati ng and as ki ng

fo r id e n ti f ica ti o n or were you arre st in g?10

Off ic er Bi as: At t hat p oin t i n ti me I was sti ll g oin g t o d e tain hi m for

inv est ig ati on. I wasn’ t su re w hat was caus ing the act ion s a t t hat p oin t i n ti me. In i ss ue th re e, ap pel lan t c ontends the tr ial courtabused its disc re ti on by q uest ion ing app ellant abo ut his backgroun d during the supp ression he aring. The ex chan ge of w hich app ellantcomp lains is as follows: The Co urt: Do y ou s peak Eng li sh? A: No. The Co urt: Do y ou unde rs tand Eng li sh w hen i t’ s s poken to y ou? A: A l ittl e. The Cou rt : A li ttl e. Oka y . Do y ou recal l w hether anyone as ked y ou for your dr iv er ’s l ic ense? A: No. The Co urt: Are you a U. S. c it iz en? A: No. The Co urt: Of w hat c ountr y are you a ci ti z en? A: San Luis Pot osi.11

T h e Co u rt : I s t h is a ci ty? A: Yes. T h e Co u rt : I n wh ic h co u n t ry? A: Rio Verde , San Luis Pot osi. The Stat e c ontends nei ther i ss ue is preser

v ed for our rev iew

bec ause no obj ect ion w as made at the t ime of the q uest ion ing . To preser v e a c omplai nt for

appel lat e rev iew , a par ty mustpresentto the t ri al cour t a ti mely

req uest, o bje ction, or moti on s tati ng the spec ificg ro und for th e d esi re d r uli ng i f the s peci fic g ro unds are notapparent from the context. Tex . R . Ap p. P . 33. 1 ; Mor eno v . St ate, 9 0 0 S
. W . 2d 357, 360 (Te x .Ap p.– T exarkana 19 95, n o w rit). W here n o obje ction is m ade , rema rks and con duct of the c our

t maynot be subseq uentl y chall eng ed unles s they consti tute fundamental er ro r becau se they

i mpug n t h e presumpt ion of inn ocenc e, de ny the defendant a fair

and impar ti al jur is t or

hav e s imi lar

effect . Mor

eno, 900 S.W .2d a t 359 , citi ng Br ewer v. State, 572 S. W .2d 719, 72 1 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1978)( panel op.) ; Oul ar e v . St ate, 76 S. W .3d 2 31, 234 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2002, no pet .) ( re cog niz ing req uirement to obj ecti s a ppl ic abl e to re marks a nd c onduct of the cour t)
. See al

so Blue v

. St ate , 41 S .W .3 d 12 9 , 138 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 00) (plurality op. ).12

Due proce ss und er b o t h t h e United St ate s and Te x as con stitutio ns requires a neutral and det ached hear ing body or off ic er . Gag non v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 7 78, 7 86, 9 3 S.C t. 1756, 1762, 36 L. Ed.2d 656 ( 1973) ; Ear ley v. Sta te, 855 S .W .2 d 2 60, 2 62 (Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr is ti 1993) , pet. dism ’ d as i m pr ovi dentl y gra nted, 872 S.W .2d 7 58 (T e x.Cri m .A p p . 1 9 9 4 ); a c co r d , B r umi t v . S tate , 206 S.W .3d 639 , 645 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 6). See al so Blue , 41 S. W .3d at 138 (Keasler, J. , c o n c u rring ) ( rig ht to impa rtial judge is absol ute r ig ht)
. A rev iew ing co urt presumes the tri al cour t was neutral and det ached absen t a cl ear

sh ow ing to the c ontrar

y . Brum it , 206 S.W .3d a t 645 ; Fi eld ing v. Sta te, 719 S.W .2d 3 61, 3 66 (Tex .App. –Da ll as 1986, pet. re f’d)
. A tri al jud g e i s p er mitt ed to q uest ion a w it ness w hen s eeki ng i nformati on, c lar ify ing a po int , or to obtai n a c lea re r ide a of the meri ts of the c ase. Mo re no, 900 S.W .2 d a t 359 ; Bur ks v. Sta te, 693 S.W .2d 7 47, 7 50 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] 1985, pet. ref’d)
. In b e n ch t ria ls, c our ts mayg o beyond th asking for me re clarif ication and ask questions th at an advocate might ask in order to a ssist the fact -fin din g proces s. Mo re no, 9 0 0 S
. W . 2 d at 35 9. Even so, a cou rt mustav oid becoming i nv olv ed as an a dv ocat e to the e xtent that itca nnot make a n obj ect iv e findi ng of facti n the ca se. Id. at 36 0. Here, t he j udg e’s q uest ion s were pos ed dur ing a hear ing on a suppress ion moti on. No jur y w as present . The nature of the q uest ion s focus ed on cl ar ify ing the ci rc umstan ces o f th e of f ice r’s de te n ti o n o f a p p e lla n t an d de te rm in in g ho w m u ch of th e En glis h la n gua ge appel lan t und ersto od. The q uest ion s b y the jud g e di d nott ain t t he presumpt ion of inn ocenc e or

depr iv e appel lan t of an u nbi ased jud g e or tr ibu nal . Beca use the q uest ion s did not ri se to t he l ev el o f f undamental er ro r, appel lan t was obl ig ated to ob ject attr ial to13

preser v e the error

for appeal . See O ula re , 76 S .W .3d a t 234 , citing Brewer, 572 S.W .2d at 7 21 . H e di d no t do s o an d th erefo re ha s p res en te d no th i ng for o ur rev i ew o n the se poin ts. Ev en i f w e c onsi der appel lan t’ s p oin ts, w e find no a b u se o f d iscreti on. Appel lan t c on te nd s o n ap pe al t ha t by e ng ag i ng i n th e q ue s ti on i ng o f t he o ffic er , th e j ud g e be c am e an advocat e for the p ro sec uti on and ass is ted t he St ate i n s ati sfy ing i ts burden. W it h re g ard to the cour

t’ s q uest ion s to appel lan t, he arg ues there i s n o aut hor ity thatper mits the “t ri al jud g e to pr

y i nto t he b a ck gro u n d ” of a defendant du ri ng a mot ion to suppress . The Sta te arg ues the court acte d prop erly , particula rly beca use co urts in ben ch trials have more la t it u d e in qu e s t io n in g wit n e s s e s b e c a u s e t h e re i s n o r is ko f im p ro p e rl y in f lu e n c in g t h e ju ry. Nav ar rov. Sta te, 477 S.W .2d 291, 29 2 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1972) ; Mo re no, 900 S.W .2d a t 359 . W e ag re e w it h the Sta te’ s p osi ti on. W h en rev iew ing com plaint s abo ut the trial judge’s question ing of a w itness, we appl y an abuse of dis creti on s tandard. Bor n v . Vi rgini a Cit y D ance Hal

l and Sa loo n, 857 S.W .2d 9 51, 9 57 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 Di st. ] 1993, w ri t deni ed)
. As noted, in cr imi nal th cas es, the tr ial judg e is per mitt ed to ques ti on a w it ness w hen s eeki ng i nformati on onl y , t o cl ar ify a po int , or

to ask the w it ness to re peat someth ing the jud g e c oul d nothear . Mo re no, 900 S. W .2d a t 360 . Judg es are per mitt ed more l eew ay w hen no jur

y i s p re sent . Id. See als o Si lv a v . St ate, 635 S.W .2d 775 , 778 (Te x .Ap p.– Corpus Chri sti 198 2, w rit ref ’d). Here, the t ri al cour

t’ s q uest ion s, both thos e as ked of the officer and thos e as ked of appell ant,14

w ere w ithin th ose c a tegories. T h e rec o rd ce rt a in ly do e s n o t in d ica te th e tri a l ju d ge abandoned hi s n eutral and det ached role . O n o u r re v i e w o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s c o m p l a i n t s , w e f i n d n o a b u s e o f d i s c re t i o n . W e overrule appe llant’s seco nd a nd th ird issues. Com m ent

on the Eviden ce In ap pel lan t’ s l asti ss ue, he ass erts the tr ial co urt er re d i n tak ing j udi ci al noti ce of the meanin g of the S pani sh w ord “ aq ui. ” The St ate a sk e d appell ant’ s b ro ther the q uest ion “[ a]nd is the Spani sh ter m for “here” “aq ui” ? W hen no v er bal respo nse w as re cei v ed, t he prose cuto r asked th e cou rt to take judicial notice of the fact th e Spa nish term for “here” is “a q ui. ” The c our

t di d s o. Appel lan t di d notobje cta t th e t im e the tr ial co urt t ook jud ic ial noti ce that “a q ui”meant “h ere ” n o r di d appel lan t obj ectat any ti me w hen t est imony

w as offered th a t “a qui ” meant “ here.” Ap pel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue th us w as not p re ser v ed for appel lat e rev iew . Tex . R . Ap p. P . 33. 1( a) (1 ); see Tex . R . Ev id. 201( e) ( “[ a] pa rty i s e nti tl ed upon t imel y

req uestto an oppo rt uni ty to be heard as to the p ro pr iety of tak ing j udi ci al not ice and the ten or of the ma tter noticed. In the abse nce o f prior notif ication , the request maybe made after

judi ci al noti ce has been t aken” ). See also Goad v. Goad, 768 S.W .2d 356, 359 (Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 1989, w ri t den ied ), cer t. denied , 493 U.S. 1021, 110 S. Ct
. 722, 107 L. Ed.2d 742 ( 1990) (fin din g co mplai nt c oncer nin g j udi ci al noti ce w aiv ed abs ent obj ect ion ). Ac cordin g ly , we ov er ru le appel lan t’ s l asti ss ue.15

Hav ing ov er ru led eac h of appel lan t’ s four i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial cour t.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice
Do not p ubl is h.