### IN T H E C O UR T OF C R IM INA L A P P E A L S OF T E XA S

NO. P D-0477-19

ISSA C W IL LIA M S, A p p e llant

v.

T H E ST A T E OF T E XA S

ON ST A T E ’S P E T IT ION FOR DISC RE T IONA R Y R E VIE W FR O M T H E FOUR T H C OUR T OF A P P E A L S

BE XA R C OUNT Y

N E W E L L , J., d elivered the op inion of t he Court in whic h K E L L E R , P.J., H E R V E Y , R I C H A R D S O N , K E E L , and S L A U G H T E R , JJ., j oined

. Y E A R Y , J., filed a d issenting op inion in whic h W A L K E R and M C C L U R E , JJ., j oined

. Aft er a j u r y t r i al, Issac Williams was fo und guilt y of co nt inuo us

t rafficking o f perso ns and was sent enced t o f ift y years in priso n. Williams

had t est ified t hat he co mmit t ed no o ffense at al l

. T he co urt o f appeals

held t hat t he t rial co urt erred in denying his r equest fo r a j ury inst ruct io n

o n t he lesser-included o ffense o f human t rafficking o f perso n s, reversedWilliams — 2

t he judgment o f t he trial co urt , and remanded t he c ause fo r a n ew t rial. 1

We have p revio usly held t hat a t r ial co urt has n o dut y t o sua spo nt e

inst ruct o n a lesser-included o ffense. 2 Request s fo r such inst ruct io ns are

mat t ers o f trial st rat egy t hat are t reat ed like defensive inst ruct io ns. 3

Acco rdingly, it is incumbent upo n defense co unsel to preserve erro r o n his
request ed inst ruct io n

. 4 Williams fai l e d t o preserve erro r in this case
because he failed t o po int t o t he specific evidence in t he re c o r d t h at

raised t he lesser-included o ffense, even aft er he was asked t o do so by

t he t rial co urt

. We will reverse and remand.

Trial
Appellant was accused o f t he co nt inuo us t r afficking o f B.F., a mino r.

T h is required pro o f t hat , during a perio d t ha t was 30 o r mo re days in

durat io n, Appellant engaged t w o o r mo re t imes in co nduct t hat

1 Williams v. State , 582 S.W.3d 612, 614–15 (Te x. App.—San An ton i o 2019).

2 Tolbe r t v. State , 306 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2010).

3 Id. ; D e lgado v. State , 235 S.W.3d 244, 249–50 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2007) ( e xpl ai n i n g th at a tr i al j u dge doe s n ot h ave a su a spon te du ty to i n str uct th e j u r y on al l pote n ti al de fe n si ve i ssu e s, l e sse r i n cl u de d offe n se s, or e vi de n ti ar y i ssu e s—as th e se i ssu e s fr e qu e n tl y de pe n d u pon tr i al str ate gy an d tacti cs). Se e also Me n de z v
. State , 545 S.W.3d 548, 552 (Te x
. Cr i m. App. 2018) ( Alman z a ’ s h ar m stan dar ds do n ot appl y wh e n a de fe n dan t fai l s to obj e ct to th e abse n c e of a de fe n si ve i ssu e i n th e ju r y ch ar ge be cau se th e tr i al cou r t wi l l h ave commi tte d no e r r or at al l , gi ve n th at “n ot e ve r y de fe n se -be n e fi tti n g i n s tr u cti on i s ‘l aw appl i c abl e to th e case .’”).

4 Se e Pose y v. State , 966 S.W.2d 57, 62 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 1998) (h ol d i n g t h at a tr i al cou r t i s n ot s tatu tor i l y r e qu i r e d to su a spon te i n s tr u ct th e j u r y on a mi s take of fact “de fe n si ve i ssu e ” be cau se a “de fe n si ve i ssu e ” i s n ot “appl i cabl e to th e case ” u n l e ss th e de f e n dan t ti me l y r e qu e sts th e i ssu e or obj e cts to th e omi ssi on of th e i ssu e i n th e j u r y ch ar ge ).Williams — 3

co nst it ut es an o ffense under Sect io n 20A.02 (“ t r afficking” ) against B.F. 5

At trial, B.F. t est ified t hat she (“ Amber” ) and Debo r a h A m e i a Co o per (“ Kandy” ) were “ adult esco rt s” handled by Appellant

. B.F. said s he was
fift een when she met Appellant o n so cial media; Appellant was in his lat e

t went ies. B.F. and Appellant m e ssaged each o t her fo r several mo nt hs

befo re meet ing in December 2013 at a park in Killeen, T exas. T he park

was wit hin walking d ist ance o f t he apart ment B.F., by then s i xt een,
sha r e d wit h her mo t h e r. B.F. and her mo t her h ad go t t e n int o an
argument , and her mo t h e r had “ kicked her o ut .”

B.F. said she and Appellant t alked fo r abo u t an ho ur in his Cadillac.
Appellant asked B.F. abo ut her past sexual experiences, and B.F. t o ld him

abo ut pro st it ut ing in M aryland when she was t hirt een. Appellant said he

wo u ld t ake care o f h e r—give h er a life bet t er t han she had wit h her

mo t her. B.F. test ified t h ey had sex in t h e car, and Appellant lat er t o o k

her t o a ho t el, “when t he act ual and real co nversat io n came up” o f what

she was act ually go ing t o be do ing.

On h is pho n e , Appellant pulled up “ backpage.co m ” ( “ Backpage” )

and sho wed her t he adult e sco rt s advert ise me n t s

. Appellant e xplained

5 T EX

. P EN

. C ODE § 20A.03; T EX

. P E N

. C ODE § 20A.02.Williams — 4

t he pro cess o f p l a c i n g a d s t o find cust omers and h o w B.F. co uld get

st art ed and make so me m o n ey. Appellant int ro duced h er t o twent y-yearo ld Co oper, t o o k t he pair t o t he st o re t o b uy “ c ut e underwear,” and t o o k
pho t o s t o creat e a Backpage advert isement

. B.F. t est ified t hey used gift

c ards t o pay fo r t he t welve-do llar ads. Because they were “ c o m p e t i n g

wit h o v er 50,000 girls f ro m all different co unt ries, st at es, c it ies,” t h ey had

t o k eep placing a d s t o get t heirs no ticed because “ yo u have t o g et [o n]

t he first t hree pages in o r der fo r so meo ne t o call yo u , which is basically

t he client . And t hen, yo u just pro c eed fro m t here.”

Over t hree t ho usand pages o f Backpage reco rds were int ro duced as

an exhibit at t rial. T h e r e co rds included co pies o f hundreds o f Backpage

ads t hat had run fro m December 9, 2013, t o August 14, 2014. T he ads

included Co o per’s email address 6 a nd , s t art ing in lat e D ecember 2013,
pho t o s o f B.F. and Co oper , a nd a message, eit her fro m B.F o r Co o per,
advert ising a “ go o d time” i n a “ mo re u pscale at mo sphere.” Co st was
list ed b y t ime. So m e o ffered a “ t wo -girl special” and re p resent ed t he

po st er of t he ad’s age as “ 20.” Mo st were invo iced t o Co o per under t he

name “ Kandy,” but so me o f t h e ads t hat ran fro m July 20 t o Au gust 5,

6 Th e bi r th day associ ate d wi th th at e mai l accou n t was Appe l l an t’s. So was th e backu p e mai l addr e ss.Williams — 5

2014 were invo iced t o Appellant

.
B.F. said Appellant wo uld drive t hem in traffic t o different cit ies

alo ng the I

- 35 co rrido r t o meet client s

. Appellant s et the prices
depending o n which cit y t hey were in. Appellant set a go al o f $600 daily

fo r B.F. and $800 f o r Co o per. B.F. co rrespo nded wit h Appellant by t ext ;

t hey used co de t o co mmunicat e abo ut t he dat es. B.F. and Co oper wo uld

st ay in a ho t el ro om while Appellant eit her wait ed in his Cadillac o r st ayed

in his own ho t el ro o m. T he client s never saw Appellant ; B.F. was never

t o tell t he client s she had a pimp. Co o per wo uld eit h er “ be in t he r o o m

if t h e client was o kay wit h it ,” o r “st ep o ut s ide t he ro o m and g o d o wn t he
hall, but she had t o st ay clo se just in case s he had a client

. ” “ And we

wo u ld kind o f swap back and fo rt h.” B.F. t e st ified they wo rked every day
except Sundays, when they wo uld g o t o church t o s ee Appellant ’ s fat her
preach.
Depart ment of Public Safet y Special Agent Sha w n Hallet t , meanwhile, was lo o king fo r juvenile vict ims o f h uman t rafficking. H e
enlist e d t he help o f Sergeant Jo hn Elizarde, an invest igat o r at t he T exas

At t o rney General’s (AG) O ffice. Hallet t t o ld the jury t hey reviewed a d s

o n Backpage and lo o ked fo r images o f po ssible mino rs, a n d t h e n wo uld

t ry to ident ify t he perso n using pho ne numbers, so cial media, and o t herWilliams — 6

dat abases. During t he invest igat io n, t hey fo u nd o n e o f t h e ads feat uring

“ Amber” and “ K a n d y ” and believed t he images depict ed a m ino r. Fro m
Faceb o o k, t he men co ncluded t hat “ Amber” was B.F. and “ Kandy” was
Amelia Co o per. B.F., t h ey learned, w as a mino r, a “ runaway o ut o f

Killeen.” Using t he co nt act info rmat io n in t he ad, Hallet t c a l led Co o per
and arranged a s e ssio n in San Ant o nio

. But w hen it was t ime t o meet up,

Co oper did no t answer her pho n e, so t he st ing co uld no t be carried o ut

. Hallet t next arranged a sessio n at a ho t el in Killeen fo r August 19,

2014. He request ed t he “ t wo -girl s pecial” fo r t he dat e. H allet t was let in

t he side do o r o f t he ho t el by Co o per. H allet t st art ed t o f ollo w her up t he

st airwell, at which po int t he AG’s office t o o k Co o per int o cust o dy.

Elizarde fo und o ut what ro o m t he girls were wo rking o ut of, and t h en t he

t wo men, t o get her wit h Sergeant S t o rmye Jackso n , lo cat ed B.F. in t he

ro o m and arrest ed her o n a warrant

. B .F. was “ really surprised and really

o v erjo yed” t hat t hey’d fo und her. Jackso n int erviewed B.F., w ho revealed

t he d et ails o f t he t rafficking scheme. A s earch o f t h e r o o m t u rned up

t hree pho nes, a receipt indicat ing t h e ro o m was regist ered t o Co o per,
mult iple cell pho n es, and, in a drawer, co ndo ms and perso nal lubricant

.
As B.F. was b eing esco rt ed out o f t he ho t el by t he agent s , Appellant

dro ve his dist inct ive Cadillac int o t he parking lo t

. B.F. ha d a “ c o m p l et eWilliams — 7

melt do wn” ; s he direct ed t he agent s’ at t ent io n t o him, saying “ T hat ’s him.

T h at ’s I ssac.” 7 Appellant was arrest ed. Agent s fo und t hirt e e n gift cards

in his w allet t hat had been used fo r “ho tel ro o m s and [ B a c kpage] ads.”

T h ey f o und, o n his perso n, a receipt fo r a ho t el in San Ant o nio , where t he

t rio h ad been just befo re Killeen. I n his car, t h ey fo und fo ur pho nes, o ne

wit h a hist o r y o f act ivit y o n Backpage. T hey also f o und a bo x o f co ndo ms

in his trunk—t he same kind f o und in t he ho tel r o o m. T ext s o n so me o f

t he co llect ed pho nes co nt ained t he co d e B.F. t e st ified the t rio used t o

c o m m u n i c a t e , a s well as st raight -fo rward co mmuni c a t i o n s t h a t r e f e r e n c e d

rides and in-and-o ut calls. Ot her pho nes’ bro wser hist o ries do cument ed

bo o kings fo r ho t els.
Appellant t est ified in his defense. Befo r e Appellant test ified, t he

defense had laid o ut a t heo ry t hr o u gh c ro ss e xaminat io n that B .F. and

7 B.F. te sti fi e d:

An d th e n , j u st as th e y we r e s i tti n g th e r e tal ki n g to me , I se e I ssac pu l l
u p. Bu t at fi r st, I kn e w h e was comi n g. I ’d se e n h i s c a r
. Bu t fi r st, h e pu l l e d u p to th e s i de door an d th e n to th e fr on t e n tr an c e of th e h o te l

. An d i mme di ate l y, I star t fr e aki n g ou t be cau se h e ’s r e al l y bi g on n o t te l l i ng th e pol i ce , th e f e ds an y th i n g abou t wh at we ’r e doi ng. He tol d me , “I f you ge t c a u g ht, de n y e ve r yth i n g be cau s e i f you ge t cau gh t, i t’s a mi sde me an o r for pr obati o n

. So, i f you ge t cau gh t, you go to j ai l , I wi l l bai l y ou o ut, an d th e n , we ’ l l ju st ke e p goi n g.” An d s o, wh e n I h ad se e n hi m, I tol d th e m—I was l i ke , “You got to move me some wh e r e e l s e .” I was sayi n g, “You got to move me some wh e r e e l se be cau se i f h e se e s me , I 'm goi ng to be i n l i ke bi g ass tr ou bl e .” An d th e y we r e l i ke , “Okay. We ’r e goi n g to move you some wh e r e e l se

. ”Williams — 8

Co oper were in a relat io nship; t hat t he scheme was B.F.’s and Co o per’s

alo ne; and t hat , but fo r t he lack o f a t ho ro ugh invest igat io n, law

enfo rcement wo uld have d isco vered that

. Appellant t est ified t hat he d id

no t co mmit any crime. He said he never had sex wit h B.F., “ had no idea

abo ut Backpage,” and n e ver t rafficked B.F. or Co oper. He claimed he had

no idea B.F. and Co o per had been p ro st it ut ing t hemselves, “ no suspicio ns

o r anyt hing like t hat .” He t ho u ght Co o per was o ut “ braiding h a i r” and
hanging o ut wit h B .F. “ T h e y h u n g o u t a lo t .” He had “ no co nnect io n”

wit h B.F. and in fact had, early o n, blo cked her o n Facebo o k because she

was co ming o n t o h im. 8 When B.F. was at t h e apart ment he shared wit h

Co oper, it was t o hang o ut wit h Co o per. He had his o wn friends.
Appellant h ad explanat io ns fo r everyt h ing. H e had the gift c ards in

his wallet because Co o per had just given him t hem because s he’d co me

t o t hink B.F. had been st ealing st uff f r o m h er, and s he want e d t hem kept

saf e

. 9 T he o nly reaso n his pho ne had incriminat ing evidence o n it was
because he and Co o per h ad swit ched pho nes a few days befo re. Ano t her

o f t he pho nes fo und in his car, he said, w as B.F.’s bo yfriend’s p ho ne. It

8 He admi tte d h e was “fl i r tati ou s” wi th h e r i n th e be gi n n i n g an d th at h e was so wi th gi r l s on soci al me di a. “I tal k to gi r l s.” He sai d, “ I ’m a gu y.” Bu t he de n i e d me e ti n g h e r on soci al
me di a. He sai d th e y me t at a be au ty sh op wh e r e sh e an d Coope r tal ke d abou t h ai r
.

9 Th e gi ft car ds, h e sai d, h ad be e n gi v e n to Coope r as payme n t for br ai di n g h ai r
.Williams — 9

must have fallen o ut o f his po cket when A p p e l l a nt gave him a ride.
Appellant said t hat Co o p er had t o ld him, po st

- a r r e s t , t h at B.F. and her

bo yfriend had been t rying t o recruit her. But “ she never to ld me t hat she

pro st it ut ed o r anyt hing like t hat .” Asked ho w Co o per, his live-in g irlfriend

o f several years, had hidden her pro s t it ut io n p ro fessio n fro m h i m , h e explained t hat ( 1) he didn’t believe t h at s he (o r B.F. fo r that mat ter) had
engaged in pro st it u tio n and (2) she was a gro wn wo man and he gave her
space t o do her own t hing. As an e xplanat io n fo r his decisio n t o simply

st o p appearing fo r c o u r t aft er h is April 16, 2015 jury s et ting, Appellant

said h e felt sad and felt bet rayed, because “ I’m a n ice perso n

. I do n’t do
anyt hing wro ng t o anybo dy.”

At t he clo se o f evidence, Appellant ’s co u ns e l no t ed on t he reco rd

t hat t h ere was an off-t he-reco rd jury ch a r g e c o n ference. T hen, he
request ed lesser-included o ffense inst r uct io ns o n “t rafficking, co mpelling

pro st it ut i o n, p ro st it ut io n, and

. . . simple assault .” Asked whet her

evidence suppo rt ed t ho s e inst ruct io ns, co u nsel said h e b e l ieved “ t here

was in s ubst ance.” All t he inst ruct io ns were denied. T h e jury fo und
Appellant guilt y o f t he charged o ffense and sent enced him t o fift y years’

co nfinement

. Ap p ealWilliams — 10

Appellant argued o n appeal t hat he suffered h arm as a result o f t he

t rial co urt ’s failure t o g i ve charges o n t he lesser-included offenses o f

h u man t rafficking, c o mpelling pro st it ut io n, and pro st it ut io n. The St a t e argued t hat t he affirmat ive evidence Ap p el l a n t po int e d t o on appeal as raising the lesser failed to negat e o t her evidence est abl i sh ing t hat he

enco uraged B.F. t o engage in pro st it ut io n as early as December 2013

when he to o k her t o a ho tel t o meet C oo per and explained t o her det ails

o f t he pro st it ut io n business, t oo k t he pho t o s t hat f e at ured t h e pair in t he
Backpage ads, and pro vided t he t ranspo rt at io n t o meet t he client s.

T h e c ourt o f appeals agreed t hat Appellant w as ent it led t o t he

lesser-included inst ruct io n o n t rafficking o f perso ns

. 10 First , t he co urt

no t ed that , as charged in t he case, t h e o n l y difference bet ween t he

o f fenses o f co nt inuo us t rafficking o f p erso n s and t rafficking o f perso ns is

t hat t he o ffense o f co n tinuo us t rafficking requires pro o f t hat a defendant ,

“ du r i ng a perio d t hat is 30 o r mo re days in durat io n,” engaged “ t wo o r

mo re t imes in co n d uct t hat co nst it ut es” trafficking. 1 1 So , t r afficking was
included wit hin t he pro o f n ece s sary t o e st ablish t he charged o ffense o f

10 Williams , 582 S.W.3d at 628.

11 Id. at 625.Williams — 11

co nt inuo us t rafficking. 1 2

Seco nd, t he co urt held t h a t t h e re w as mo r e t han a scint illa o f

evidence fro m which a rat io nal jury co uld co nclude Appellant was guilt y

o f o nly t rafficking and no t co nt inuo us t r afficking. 1 3 T he co urt po int ed t o

t he Backpage ads as evidence fro m w hich a r at io nal jury co uld co nclude
Appellant was co mpelling B.F. t o co mm i t pr o s t it ut io n just f r o m July 20,
2014, t o August 5, 2014. 1 4 T his is because Appellant was invo iced during

t hat t ime, but t he ads pl aced befo re July 20 and aft er August 5, 2014

were invo iced t o Co o per under t he name “Kandy.” 1 5 Also , the jury co uld
infer, f ro m o n e o f Co o p er’s t ext messages to B.F., t h at befo re July 20t h,

Co oper and B.F. were act ing wit h o ut his kno wledge. 1 6 T hat t ext message,
dat ed July 8t h, st at ed, “ Make sure Issac do esn’t see y o u.” 1 7 At t rial,

defense co unsel argued t his t ext message was evidence t hat Co o per and

B.F. were do ing so met hing t hey did no t want Appellant t o kno w abo ut

.
Fin a l l y, t he co urt no t ed t hat the jury was free t o disbelieve evidence

12 Id.

13 Id . at 627.

14 Id. at 626–27.

15 Id.

16 Id. at 627.

17 Id.Williams — 12

sho wing Appellan t w a s c ommit t ing t he offense fo r a p erio d mo re t han

t hirt y days, and believe Appellant ’ s t e st imo ny t hat t he reaso n h is pho ne
had incriminat ing evidence o n it was be c a us e he had swapped pho nes

wit h Co o per a few days befo re t he arrest

. 1 8

T h e co urt h e ld t hat “ because Williams preserved erro r by request ing

t he lesser-included inst r uct io n,” it wo uld apply t he “ so me harm”

st andard. 1 9 I t t hen fo und “ so me harm” be c ause t h e jury charge
permit t ed t he jury to eit her co nvict Appellant o f co nt inuo us t r afficking o r

t o acquit him alt o get h e r; t h e jury w as d enied t he o p po rt u nit y t o co nsider

t he ent ire range o f offenses present ed by the evidence. 2 0 T he c o urt

reversed t he j udgment o f t he t rial co urt and r emanded t he cause fo r a

new t rial. 2 1

Petition f or Disc retionary R eview

T h e St at e filed a pet it io n fo r discret io nary review, arguing t hat
Appellant did no t preserve his request fo r t h e lesser-included o ffense o f

t rafficking because h e failed to ident ify any evidence suppo rt ing t he

18 Id . at 627–28.

19 Id . at 628.

20 Id . at 629.

21 Id

.Williams — 13

request and d enied co m mit t ing any offense. T he St at e also argued t hat

t he co urt o f appeals erred to co n clude t hat t he lesser-included o ffense o f

t rafficking w as a r at io nal alt ernat ive t o co nt inuo us t rafficking and aside

fro m t hat , misapplied t he Almanza “ so me harm” st andard. We g rant ed

review o n all t hree issues.

As preservat io n o f erro r is a syst emic req u i r em e nt t hat must be

reviewed by t h e c o u r t s o f appeals regardless o f whet her the issue is

raised by t h e part ies , o u r inquiry int o whet her Appellant preserved t his
alleged erro r is appro priat e. 2 2 And because we find t h at Appellant failed

t o preserve his request fo r t he inst ruct io n o n t rafficking, we d o n o t get t o

t he St at e’s argument s o n t he merit s

. Preservation of

Def ensive and Def ensive-Typ e Charg es

T e xas Rule o f Appellat e P ro cedure 33.1 pro vides t hat , as a prerequisit e t o pre s e n ting a c o mplaint fo r appellat e r eview, t h e reco rd

must sho w t hat : ( 1) t he co m plaint was made t o t h e trial c o urt by a t imely
request , object io n, o r mo t io n t hat s t at ed t he gro u nds fo r t h e ruling t hat

t he co mplaining part y s ought fro m t he trial co urt wit h sufficient specificit y

t o make t he t ri a l c o u rt aware o f t he co m plaint , unless t h e specific

22 For d v. State , 305 S.W.3d 530, 532–33 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2009).Williams — 14

gro unds were appa re n t f r o m t he c o nt ext ; and (2) t he trial co urt eit her

ruled o n t he request , o bject io n, o r mo t io n , eit her expressly o r implicit ly

o r , over a f u r t her c o mplaint , refused t o do so

. 2 3 “ T he purpo se fo r requiring a t imely, specific o bject io n is t wo fo ld: (1) it info rms t he judge

o f the b asis o f the o bject io n and affo rds him an o ppo rt un i t y t o rule o n

it [ ;] and ( 2) it affo rds oppo sing co unsel an o ppo rt unit y t o respo n d t o t he

co mplaint .” 2 4

When it co mes t o jury inst ruct io ns, t rial co urt s are required t o

inst ruct t h e jury o n “ the law applicable t o the c a s e

. ” 2 5 A s we held in

Almanza v. St

at e , if a defendant co mplains o n appeal abo ut an erro neo us

inst ruct io n (o r lack o f a pro per inst ruct io n ) regarding an area o f t he law

t hat is c o n s i de r ed t he law applicable t o t he case, the o bject io n (o r lack

t hereo f) det ermines the applicable st andard fo r assessing harm. 2 6 I f a

pro per o bject io n was made at trial t o a n e r r o r in t he j ury charge,
reviewing co urt s det ermine whet her t he erro r caused t he defendant so me

23 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 33.1(a).

24 D ou ds v. State , 472 S.W.3d 670, 674 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2015).

25 Se e D e lgado , 235 S.W.3d at 249 ( “Th e tr i al j u dge h as an absol u te su a spon te du ty to pr e par e a j u r y ch ar ge th at accu r ate l y s e ts ou t th e l aw appl i cabl e to th e spe ci fi c offe n s e ch ar ge d.”).

26 Se e Alman z a v. State , 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Te x. C r i m. App. 1984); Blu itt v. State , 137 S.W.3d 51, 53 (Te x . Cr i m. App. 2004).Williams — 15

harm. 2 7 I f no o bject io n was made, reviewing co urt s det ermine whet her

t he erro r caused t h e defendant egregio us harm. 2 8

But when t he co mplai n e d-o f erro r is t he lack o f a defensive

inst ruct io n, t he Almanza framewo rk do es no t apply. 2 9 As we e xplained in

Po sey v. St

at e , unrequest ed defensive inst ruct io n s are s t i ll subject t o

o r dinary rules o f pro cedural default

. 3 0 A defendant canno t co mplain fo r

t he first t ime o n appeal abo ut t he lack o f a defensive inst ruct io n absent
preservat io n o f t he erro r. 3 1
Request s fo r lesser-included inst ruct io n s, like request s fo r defensive

27 Alman za , 686 S.W.2d at 171.

28 Id.

29 Se e Pose y , 966 S.W.2d at 61 (“Wh e n , u n de r ge n e r al r u l e s of pr o ce du r al de fau l t, an appe l l ate c ou r t hol ds a de f e n dan t h as pr oce du r al l y de fau l te d a par ti c u l ar c l ai m by n ot ti me l y r ai si ng i t i n th e tr i al cou r t, t h e appe l l ate cou r t doe s n o t con ce de th at ‘e r r o r ’ h as occu r r e d. I n th e se s i tu ati on s, al l th e appe l l ate cou r t i s sayi n g i s th at i t wi l l n ot addr e ss th e me r i ts of a cl ai m r ai se d for th e f i r st ti me on appe al

. Th i s i s i mpor tan t be cau se Alman z a doe s n ot appl y un l e ss th e appe l l ate cou r t fi r st fi n ds ‘e r r o r ’ i n th e ju r y ch ar ge .”); T o lbe r t , 3 0 6 S .W

. 3 d at 781–82 (con cl udi n g th at “th e r e was n o ju r y -ch ar ge ‘e r r or ’ to wh i ch Alman z a 's e gr e gi o u s h ar m an al ysi s wou l d a p p l y ” b ec a u se “th e tr i al c ou r t h ad no du ty to su a spon te i n str u ct th e j u r y on th e l e s se r -i n cl u de d offe n se of mu r de r an d th at a j u r y i n str u cti on on th i s l e sse r -i n cl u de d offe n se was n o t ‘ a p p l i c abl e to th e case ’ abse n t a r e qu e st by th e de fe n se for i ts i n c l u si o n i n th e j u r y ch ar ge .”).

30 Pose y , 966 S.W.2d at 61–62.

31 Id

. at 62 (de ci di n g th at a “de f e n si v e i ssu e ” i s n ot “appl i c abl e to th e case ” u n l e ss th e de f e n dan t “t i m e l y r e q u e s t s th e i ssu e or obj e cts to th e omi ssi on o f th e i ssu e i n th e j u r y ch ar ge ”); se e also D e lgado , 235 S.W.3d at 250 (“I t i s cl e ar th at th e de f e n se may n ot cl ai m e r r or su cce ssfu l l y on appe al du e to th e omi ssi on of a l e sse r i n cl u de d offe n se i f th e de fe n se r e fr ai n e d fr om r e qu e sti n g on e

. Li ke wi se , an y e r r or i n th e i m p r ope r su bmi ssi o n of a l e sse r i n cl u de d i n str ucti on i s wai ve d i f th e de fe nse fai l s to obj e ct to th e i n str u cti o n .”) (qu oti n g 43 G EORG E E

. D I X & R O B ERT O. D A W S O N , C RI MI N A L P RA C T I C E A N D P R OC EDU RE § 36.50 at 201 (Su pp. 2006)).Williams — 16

inst ruct io ns, “ frequent ly depend upo n t rial st rat egy and t act ics,” so t hey

are no t co nsidered “t he law applicable to t he ca s e

. ” 32 Co nsequent ly, a

t rial co urt is no t obligat e d to inst ruct o n t hem absent a r equest

. 3 3 Art icle

36.14 pro vides guidance on preserving f o r r eview any except io ns o r

o b ject io ns t o t h e jury charge. 3 4 I t requires t h at t he de f e n da nt eit her
present his object io ns in writ ing o r dict at e t hem t o the co urt repo rt er. 3 5

T h e o bject io ns “ may embo dy erro r s claimed t o have been co mmit t ed in

t he charge, as w ell as e rro rs claimed t o h ave been co m mit t ed by

o m issio ns t herefro m o r in failing t o charge u po n issues arising fro m t he

fact s.” 3 6

And specific t o request s fo r lesser-included offenses, t h e defendant

must po int t o evidence in t he reco rd t hat ra ises t he lesser-included

o f fense. As we st at ed in Hall v. St at e , t he defendant may rely o n

32 Tolbe r

t , 306 S.W.3d at 780–81.

33 Id

. at 781; Me nde z , 545 S.W.3d at 552 (“I f th e de fe n dan t fai l s to obj ec t t o t h e abse n ce of [de fe nse -be n e fi tti n g] i n s t r u cti on s i n th e j u r y ch ar ge , th e tr i al cou r t wi l l h ave commi tte d n o e r r or at al l ; a tr i al cou r t doe s n ot e r r by f a i l i n g to i n s tr u c t th e j ur y on an i ssu e th at was, by vi r tu e of th e de fe ndan t's si l e n ce , si mpl y i n appl i cabl e to th e case .”).

34 Se e T EX

. C O DE C RI M

. P RO

. ar t. 36.14 (“Compl i an ce wi th th e pr ovi si on s of th i s Ar ti cl e i s al l th at i s n e ce ssar y to pr e se r v e , for re v i e w, th e e xce pti on s an d obj e cti on s pr e se n te d to th e ch ar ge an d an y ame n dme n t or modi fi c ati o n th e r e of.”).

35 Id.

36 Id

.Williams — 17

“ anyt hing mo r e t han a scint illa o f evidence” in request ing an inst ruct io n,
but he is ent it led t o such an inst ruct io n (and t he t rial judge must include

such an i n s truct io n) only when t he evidence e st ablishes t he lesserincluded o ffense as a valid, rat io nal alt ernat ive t o t he charged o ffense. 3 7

T h us, if a defendant request s a part icular lesser-included inst ruct io n and

he set s o ut , o n t he r eco rd, t he specific evidence t hat suppo rt s a rat io n al

basis fo r reject ing t he g reat er offense but suppo r t ing the lesser o ffense, 3 8

t he t rial judge errs if he refuses t o inst ruc t t h e jury on that lesser

o f fense. 3 9

But g eneral o r insufficient ly specific o bject io n s do no t preserve erro r
fo r appeal. 4 0 A defendant who files o r dict at e s a laundry-list o f o bject io ns

t o t he charge must also specify t h e leg a l o r f a ct ual reaso ns why he

37 Hall v. State , 225 S.W.3d 524, 536 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2007).

38 Hampton v. State , 109 S.W.3d 437, 441 (Te x. C r i m. App. 2003), abr o gate d on oth e r gr ou n ds by Gr

e y v. State , 298 S.W.3d 644 (Te x. C r i m. App. 2012) (“[I ]t i s n ot e n ou gh th at th e j u r y may di sbe l i e ve cr u ci al e vi de n ce pe r tai n i n g to th e gr e ate r offe n s e , bu t r ath e r , th e r e mu st be s ome e vi de n ce di r e ctl y ge r man e to th e l e sse r -i n cl ude d offe n se for th e f i n d e r o f f act to con si de r be for e an i n s tr u c ti on o n a l e sse r -i n cl u de d offe n se i s war r an te d.”) (ci ti n g Skin n e r v. State , 956 S.W.2d 532, 543 (Te x . Cr i m. App. 1997)).

39 Flor e s v. State , 245 S.W.3d 432, 439 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2008) (A de fe ndan t i s e n ti tl e d to a j u r y ch ar ge on a l e sse r -i n cl u de d offe n se i f h e me e ts two r e qu i r e me n ts: (1) h e r e qu e sts an i n str ucti on on a l e sse r -i n cl u de d o ffe n se of th e ch ar ge d offe n s e ; an d (2) th e r e i s “some
e vi de nce ” th at, i f h e i s gu i l ty, h e i s gu i l ty on l y of t h e l e s se r -i n cl u de d offe n se .); Be ll v. State , 693 S.W.2d 434, 442 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 1985) (“I f e v i de n ce fr om an y sou r ce r ai s e s th e i ssu e of a l e sse r i n cl u de d offe n s e , th e ch ar ge mu st be gi ve n .”).

40 Se e Mays v. State , 318 S.W.3d 368, 383 (Te x. C r i m. App. 2010); Roge r s v. State , 105 S.W.3d 630, 639–40 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2003).Williams — 18

believes himself e nt it led t o such special inst ruct io n s. 4 1 T his requirement

a lert s t h e t rial co urt , and t he o ppo sing part y, o f what s t r at egic j ury

inst ruct io ns t h e p a r t y want s and why he is ent it led to them. 4 2 Again

t ho ugh, under Rule 33.1, if t he gro unds fo r the inst ruct io n are o bvio us t o

t he c o urt and o p po sing co unsel, t hen erro r is p reserved fo r a pp e a l

. 4 3

T h us, the t rial judge errs o nly when h e refuses t o s ubmit an inst ruct i o n

o n an act ual lesser included when (1) such specific evidence is manifest ,

o r (2) t he defendant po i n t s t o t h e s pecific e vidence t h at negat es t he
great er o ffense but suppo rt s t he lesser o ffense. 4 4
Ap p lic ation
Appellant request ed t he inst ruct io n of t rafficking, but he did so in a laundry-list o f o bject io ns and wit ho ut specifying t h e l e gal o r fact u al

reaso n s he believed himself ent it led to i t

— n o t o n t h e reco rd and no t t o

t he sat isfact io n of t he t rial co urt

. A t t h e clo se o f evidence, Appellant ’s

41 Mays , 318 S.W.3d at 384.

42 Id. at 383.

43 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 33.1(a)(1); se e Bu ch an an v. State , 207 S.W.3d 772, 775 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2006) (“I t i s we l l e stabl i sh e d th at, i n or de r to pr e se r ve an i ssu e for appe al , a ti me l y obj e cti on mu st be made th at state s th e spe ci f i c gr ou n d of obj e cti o n , i f th e spe ci fi c gr ou n d was n ot appar e n t fr om th e con te xt. A ge n e r al or i mpr e ci se obj e cti on may be su f fi ci e nt to pr e se r ve e r r or for appe al , bu t on l y i f th e l e gal basi s for th e obj e cti on i s obviou s t o t h e cou r t an d to opposi n g cou n se l .”).

44 Se e T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 33.1(a)(1) ; Hampton , 109 S.W.3d at 440–41; Flor e s , 245 S.W.3d at 439.Williams — 19

co unsel no t ed o n t he reco rd t hat t here was an o ff-t he-reco rd j ury charge

co nference. T hen, he request ed lesser-included o ffense inst r uct io ns.

T R I AL COUNSEL: I n t his charge, we are asking t hat t he lesser-includeds be placed in t he charge. I f we go t hro ugh t he definit io n o f t h e charge, t here are element s t hat we t a l k ed abo ut in t he info rmal charge co nference: Human trafficking,
co mpelling pr o s tit ut io n, pro st it ut io n, and then, t h ere w as evidence o f a simple assault

. S o w e b elieve t hat t h ere is sufficient evidence fo r the j u ry t o lo ok at any o n e o f t ho se t he o r i e s a nd find a lesser-included, and we ask fo r t ho s e charges t o be—t h e lesser-included—

T H E COURT : I s t here—was t h ere any evidence elicit ed—and refresh m y memo ry—t hat if he's guilt y of any o f f ense, he's guilt y o f t he lesser o nly and no t the great e r ?

T R I AL COUNSEL: I believe t here was in subst ance.

T H E COURT : Do

—
T R I AL COUNSEL: Okay. And t h en, t he Co ur t m a k e s t he ruling. I t is what it is.

T H E COURT : Okay. T hat will be denied.

A p pellant failed t o po int t o any affirmat ive evidence that wo uld

suppo rt t he submissio n o f any o f t he r equest ed lesser-included o f f e n se

inst ruct io ns. And, specific t o t h e lesser o f t rafficking, Appellant failed t o

po int t o t h e fact s like t ho s e he relied o n in t he co urt o f appeals: t hat t he
Backpage ads placed befo re July 20, 2014 and aft er August 5, 2014 were

invo iced e xclusively t o Co o per under t he name “ Ka ndy” ; t hat Co o per’sWilliams — 20

t ext message t o B.F. suggest ed Appellant was k ept in t he dark; and t hat

o n e o f his pho nes co nt ained t he h ist o r y o f Backpage a c t i v i t y because

Co oper had “ merged” her pho ne wit h his. No ne o f t h is s pecific evidence

was manifest because t h e defensive th e o r y was t hat he did no t co mmit
any crime. 4 5

Rat her, befo re t he request fo r t he lessers, the t rial co urt had heard
Appellant t est ify in his defense and deny t hat he co m mit ted any o ffense

at al l

. Appellant argues t hat his c o mplet e denial o f t he o ffense o f

t rafficking do es no t , as the St at e wo uld have it , aut o m at ically bar him

fro m receiving a lesser-included o ffense inst r uct io n. 4 6

But we are no t addressing whet her the inst ruct io n is warrant ed by

evidence a t t r i al. We are addressing, in t he first inst ance, whet her t he

gro unds fo r t he request wo u ld have been o bvio us t o t he t rial co urt so t hat

any e rro r in failing t o give the inst ruct io n was preserved fo r appeal. And

t hey wo uld no t have been so here. T h e t r ial co urt asked whet her t here

was e vidence t hat negat ed t he great e r o ffense. Co unsel’s respo nse, “ I

believe t here was in subst ance[,]” failed t o direct t he t r ial c o urt t o specific

45 Se e Sau n de r

s v. State , 840 S.W.2d 390, 391–92 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 1992) (de n i al by th e d e f en d a n t o f th e commi s si on of th e offe n se di d n o t r ai se th e i ssu e of a l e sse r -i n cl u de d offe n se ).

46 Br i e f for

Appe l l an t at 22–23.Williams — 21

evidence j ust ifying t he jury inst ruct io n

. And, as t h e trial co urt st art ed t o
ask ano t her quest io n, co unsel cut t he c o u rt o f f, saying, “ O kay. And t hen,

t he Co urt makes t h e ruling. I t is what it is. ” B e c a u s e t he evidence

suppo rt ing t rafficking as a r at io nal alt ernat ive t o t he charged o ffense was

no t obvio us, and Appellant failed t o po int t o it , t he trial co u r t , reversed

o n appeal, was classically “ sand-bagged.” 4 7 T h e reaso n t he

c o nt empo raneo us o bject io n rule exist s is t o give t he t rial ju d g e a n

o p po rt unit y t o make a given ruling and t o get it right

. 4 8
Perhaps at t he c h arge co nference Appellant p ro vided mo r e clarit y regarding his request s fo r jury inst r uct io n s o n lesser-included o ffenses.

But t he appealing part y carries t he burden t o e nsure t hat t he reco rd o n appeal is sufficient t o reso lve t he issues present ed. 4 9 T he reco r d in t his

case do e s no t co nt ain a b ill o f except io n pro v i ding t he subst ance o f t he

47 Se e Mays , 318 S.W.3d at 383 (“Th e pu r pose of th e Pose y r u l e [ r eq ui r i ng a par ty to pr e se r v e a ch al l e n ge t o t h e t r i al cou r t’s i n s tr u cti on s on a de fe n si ve i ssu e by maki n g a ti me l y r e qu e st or obj e cti on ] i s t o p r e v en t t h e par ty fr om ‘san dbaggi n g’ th e tr i al j udge by fai l i n g to appr i se h i m, an d th e opposi n g par ty, of wh at de fe nsi ve j ur y i n str u cti on s th e par ty wan ts an d wh y h e i s e n ti tl e d to th e m.”).

48 Se e E

x p a r te Me de llin , 280 S.W.3d 854, 860 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2008) (“[A] a con te mpor an e ou s obj e cti on pe r mi ts th e tr i al j udge to r e me dy pote n ti al e r r or be for e i t occu r s.”).

49 Lon don v. Sta t e , 4 9 0 S.W.3d 503, 508 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2016); Wor d v. State , 206 S.W.3d 646, 651–52 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2006). Se e also Un ite d State s v. Re dd , 355 F.3d 866, 873–75 (5th Ci r
. 2003) (fi n di n g de fe n dan t fai l e d to pr ope r l y obj e ct to th e ju r y i n str u cti on s on atte mpt an d th e i mpossi bi l i ty de fe n se , wh e r e ch ar ge con fe r e n ce was h e l d i n ch ambe r s an d offth e -r e c or d; obj e cti on s “cou l d me e t th e spe ci fi ci ty r e qu i r e me n t on l y by i n cor por ati n g th e r e fe r r e d-to di s cu ssi on i n ch ambe r s ”).Williams — 22

o f f-t he-reco rd charge co nference. 5 0 No r is t he s ubst ance o f it so meho w

o therwise reflect ed in t h e reco rd. 5 1

Minus t he b enefit o f any o ff-t h e-reco r d argument , Appellant ’s
just ificat io n fo r t he inst r uct io n o n t rafficking was t hat evidence “ in

subst ance” raised it

. S u c h an o bject io n do es no t meet t he specificit y

r e quirement s o f R u le 33.1 o r Art icle 36.14. 5 2 Appellant , under t h e
discret e fact s here, has failed t o preserve erro r because he f ailed t o specify w hat fact s o r legal theo ry wo uld suppo rt submissio n of the lesser

o f t rafficking and t hat t heo ry was no t o t h erwise o bvio u s. 5 3

50 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 33.2 (“To compl ai n on appe al abou t a matte r th at wou l d n ot oth e r wi s e appe ar i n th e r e cor d, a par ty mu st fi l e a f or mal bi l l of e xce pti on .”); Cf. H aygood v. State , 127 S.W.3d 805, 811 (Te x. App.

— S a n A n t o n i o 2003, pe t. r e f’d) (“At 1:25 p.m. th e h e ar i n g r e con ve n e d on th e r e cor d, i n th e pr e se n ce of th e State , de fe n s e cou n s e l , an d de fe n dan t. De f e n se cou n s e l aske d th at a bi l l of e xce pti on be made abou t pr e vi ou s di scu ssi on s h e l d off th e r e cor d abou t th e me di cal r e cor ds.”).

51 Cf. Gome z v. State , 552 S.W.3d 422, 427–28 (Te x. App.

— For t Wor th 2018, n o pe t.) (“Al th ou gh th e r e i s n o obj e cti on i n th e r e cor d to Offi c e r McCr aw’s state me n t, i m m e di ate l y fol l owi n g th e state me n t, Appe l l an t’s cou n se l r e qu e ste d a be n ch con fe r e n ce

. Th e con fe r e n ce th at fol l owe d was h e l d off th e r e cor d, bu t j u dgi n g fr o m th e tr i al c o u r t ’ s s tate me nts an d qu e sti on s of Offi ce r McCr aw i mme di ate l y af t e r war d, th e tr i al c ou r t u n de r s tood Appe l l an t’s obj e cti on as r e l ati n g to i n admi ssi bl e e v i de n ce o f e xtr an e ou s offe nse s. Th i s i s al so th e ar gu me nt Appe l l an t pu ts for th on a p p e a l , a n d t h e State doe s n o t di spu te th at th i s was th e c on c e r n e xpr e sse d by Appe l l an t du r i n g th e con fe r e n ce .”).

52 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A) (r e qu i r i n g a state me n t of th e gr ou n ds for t h e r u l i n g sou gh t “wi th su ffi ci e n t spe ci f i ci ty” to make th e tr i al cou r t awar e of th e compl ai n t, u n l e ss th e spe ci fi c gr ou n ds ar e appar e n t); T EX

. C RI M

. P ROC

. ar t. 36.14 (de fe n dan t or cou n se l “sh al l pr e se n t h i s obj e cti on s th e r e to i n wr i ti n g, di sti n c tl y spe ci fyi n g e ach gr ou n d of obj e cti o n .”).

53 Se e Lan kston v. State , 82 7 S

. W

. 2 d 907, 909 (Te x. C r i m. App. 1992) (“As r e gar ds spe ci fi c i ty, al l a par ty has to do to avoi d th e for fe i tu r e of a c ompl ai nt on appe al i s to l e t th e tr i al j u dge kn ow wh at h e wan ts, wh y he th i n ks h i mse l f e n ti tl e d to i t, an d to do so c l e ar l y e n ou gh for th e j u dge to u n de r stan d h i m at a ti me wh e n th e tr i al cou r t i s i n a pr ope r posi ti on to do some th i n g abou t i t.”).Williams — 23

Conc l usion
Appellant let the t rial co urt kno w what h e want ed: an inst ruct io n

o n t h e o ffense o f t rafficking. But he d i d n o t let t he t rial co urt

kno w—when asked t o d o so —why he t ho ught he wa s e n t i t led t o it

. 5 4
Appellant did no t po i n t t o evidence that wo uld suppo rt a valid, rat io n al

alt ernat ive t o t he great er o ffense. We r everse t he j u dgment o f t he co urt

o f appeals and r emand t he case f or c o nsiderat io n of Appellant ’ s o t her

po int s o f erro r

raised t here and no t addressed.

Delivered: May 26, 2021

Publish

54 Se e Layton v. State , 280 S.W.3d 235, 238–39 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2009).