COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00029-CR

JOE BRISENO APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

A jury found Appellant Joe Briseno guilty of aggravated assault with a 

deadly weapon, and after he pleaded true to the enhancement allegation, the jury 

assessed punishment at twenty-five years’ imprisonment. The trial court 

sentenced him accordingly. In a single point, Briseno contends that the trial court 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

abused its discretion by excluding evidence of a State’s witness’s prior bad acts.

We will affirm.

Monica Henderson knew Briseno and his wife Melissa. Henderson was at 

home with her children watching TV when Briseno entered her home 

unannounced, carrying a gun in his hand. Briseno pointed the gun at Henderson

and questioned her regarding his wife Melissa’s whereabouts. When Henderson 

denied knowing Melissa’s location, Briseno pointed the gun at Henderson’s 

seven-year-old son sitting beside her. Briseno continued to threaten Henderson 

and her children as he searched her home, looking for his wife. Approximately 

thirty minutes after entering Henderson’s home, Briseno told Henderson not to 

talk to the police about the incident, threatening to send his “homeboys [to] finish 

the job” if she did, and he left. Henderson later reported the incident to police 

and testified as a witness for the State at trial. 

Briseno argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing him

to impeach Henderson on cross-examination by asking her whether she had 

gone to Briseno’s residence after the incident to buy marijuana. Briseno also 

argues that by disallowing this line of questioning, the trial court denied him the 

right to confront his accuser. 

To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have presented to the 

trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the specific grounds 

for the desired ruling if they are not apparent from the context of the request, 

objection, or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Landers v. State, 402 S.W.3d 
3

252, 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Sample v. State, 405 S.W.3d 295, 300 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth 2013, pet. ref’d). A complaint that the trial court abused its 

discretion by excluding impeachment evidence may not be pursued on appeal 

unless the proponent perfected an offer of proof or a bill of exception. See Tex.

R. App. P. 33.2; Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2); Guidry v. State, 9 S.W.3d 133, 153 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 837 (2000). A reviewing court 

should not address the merits of an issue that has not been preserved for appeal. 

Wilson v. State, 311 S.W.3d 452, 473 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (op. on reh’g); 

Sample, 405 S.W.3d at 300.

Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine seeking to have the trial court 

rule outside the jury’s presence on the admission of any evidence of a State’s 

witness’s bad acts. Defense counsel received a copy of the motion in limine, and 

the trial court granted the motion with no objection from defense counsel. At trial,

defense counsel questioned Henderson about the number of times she had been 

to Briseno’s house and the nature of her visits. Henderson testified that she had 

been to Briseno’s house several times in order to buy marijuana from him. The 

trial court sustained the State’s objection when defense counsel asked 

Henderson whether she had returned to his house after the incident to buy 

marijuana. Defense counsel did not identify for the record what the excluded 

testimony would have been, nor did she object that the excluded testimony would 

have been admissible to impeach Henderson. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); 

Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2). Defense counsel also did not object that by excluding 
4

this line of questioning, the trial court denied Briseno the right to confront his 

accuser. See Parker v. State, No. 02-01-00275-CR, 2003 WL 21357571, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 12, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication). Accordingly, we must conclude that Briseno has not preserved his 

complaint for appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2); 

Guidry, 9 S.W.3d at 153. We overrule Briseno’s sole point.

Having overruled Briseno’s point, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 29, 2014