## NO. 12-07-00233-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

LARRY RAY GOWIN, § APPEAL F ROM THE E

IGHTH APPELLANT V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF
TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § RAIN S CO UN TY, T EXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION L arr y Ray Gowin appe als his conviction for dr iving while i n t o x i cate d, for whic h he wa s
se nte nc e d to imp ri so nme nt fo r fi ft e e n y e ars . In tw o is su e s, Ap pe lla nt c ha lle ng e s th e a dmi ssi bil ity of te sti mony

pr of fe re d b y on e of the State ’s e xpe rt

wi tne sse s. We a ff

ir m.

B ACKG ROUND On the evening of October 11, 2005, Appellant was notified that his house was on fir e. As Appellant drove slowly toward his home, he was followed closely by a fire t ruck. The fir e truc k had activate d it s li g h ts an d

s ir e nin a na p p ar e n t att e mp t t o s ign a l t o Ap p e ll an t t o a ll o w it to p a s s . As Ap pe lla nt a pp ro a c he d h is h ou se , h e sto pp e d h is v e hic le in t he mid dle of

the ro a dw ay . B ut i n response to the prompting of police office rs on the scene , Appellant moved his vehicle into a ne arby dr ive wa y , n e arl y str iki nga

pa rk e d c ar a s h e did

so . U lti mat e ly , th e fi re tr uc k w a s a

ble to p a ss Appellant and r eac h his burning house

. Em or y Pol ic e Chi e f B ru c e F e a g in o bs e rv e d th a t App e lla nt s tr ug g le d to wa lk a s h e e xite d h is
car . Fe ag in further

noted that Appellant’ s speec h was so slurre d that it was difficult to understa nd2

him. Office r Tra cy

Rosson smelled the odor of alc ohol on Appellant and in the car. R osson further observe d that Appellant seeme d dazed and confuse d and that his e y es wer e bloodshot. Concluding that Appellant was, as a result of his intoxi cation, a dang er to himself, the f irefig hters, and e veryone
e lse pr e se nt, F e a g in i ns tr

uc te d o ff ic e rs to a rr e st A pp e lla nt. Rosson transported Appe ll an t t o j ai l . At the jail, Rains County Sheriff’ s Deputy

J ohn Wallace pe rfor

med a f ull sobriety

test on Appellant, which inc luded a hor izont al g aze ny st agmus (“ HG N” ) t e st. Appellant wa s char g ed by indictment with felony driving while intox icated a nd pleade d “not g uilty .” T h e matt e r p r o c e e d e d to a ju r y tr ia l. U lt im a te ly , th e ju r y f o un d Ap p e ll an t “ g u il ty ” as char g ed. F ollowin g

a tria l o n p u n is hme nt, the jury

assessed A

ppellant’s punishment at imprisonment for f ifteen year s. The trial c ourt sentenc ed Appe llant acc ording ly , and this appea l followed.

HGN T EST S CRE E NI NG In his first issue, Appel l an t argue s that the trial cour t erre d in admitting into evidence the results of the HG

N test bec aus e W al l ac e failed to sufficiently scre en him for f

actor s other than alcohol that could potentially contribute to or c ause ny stag mus. The State contends that Appellant has fa iled to preser

ve er ror. As a pre requisite to pre senting a complaint for appellate revie w, the re cord must re flec t that the complaint was ma de to t h e t rial cour t by a timely reque st, objection, or motion that stated the g ro un ds fo r t

he ru lin g the c omp la ini ngpa rt y so ug ht f ro m th e tr ia l c ourt

wi th s uf fi c ie nt s pe c if

ic ity to make the tria l court aw are of the c omplaint. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3. 1( a ); see also T EX
. R. E V ID
. 103 (er ror may not b e p re d i ca t ed u pon a rulingthat admits evidence unless a timely objection or motion to s trike appe ars of rec ord, stating the specific g round of the objection, if the specific g round was not appa

rent fr om the conte x t ). Rules 33.1 and 103 a re“ judge protec ting” rules of e rror p rese rvation. See Ma rti ne z v . St ate , 9 1 S

. W

. 3 d 3 3 1 , 3 3 5 ( T e x. C r i m . Ap p . 2 0 0 2 )

. Th e ba sic principle of both r

ules is that of “party

responsibility .” Id. Thus, the par ty complaining on appea l about a tria l court’s admission of evidence must, at t he ea rliest opportunity , have done ever y thing
nece ssary to bring to the judge ’s attention the rule in question and its precise a nd proper application to the evidence in question. Id. at 335–36. Moreove r, the objection at trial must c omport with theSee V e la v . S ta te , 20 9 S.W

. 3 d 12 8 , 13 3

– 3 4 (T ex. C ri m . A p p . 20 0 6 ) ( d i scus si ng rel i ab i l i t y of exp ert 1 te stim o n y); s ee al

s o T EX
. R. E V ID
. 70 5 (c).
See T EX
. R. E V ID
. 402, 403, 702. 2 3 issue on appea l. See Br oxton v . St ate , 9 09 S.W. 2d

91 2, 91 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95 ); se e als o Martin ez , 91 S.W .3d at 336. Tw o g e ne ra l po li cie s un der lie the re qu ir e me nt t hat a c omp la ini ngpa

rt y make a sp e c if ic objection. Martin ez , 91 S

. W

. 3 d at 3 3 6

. First, a spe cific obje ction is require d to inform the trial judge of the ba sis of the objection and a ffor d him the opportun i t y t o ru l e o n i t. Id. Second, a specific objection is require d to aff ord opposi ng counsel an opportunity to remove the objection or supply other testimony

. Id. Stated more broa dly , objections promote the pr evention and c orre ction of er rors. Id. When valid objections are timely made and sustained, t he par ties may have a lawful trial. Id. They , and the judicial sy stem, are not burdene d by appea l and re trial. Id. Whe n a pa rt y is ex cused f

rom the re quirement of obje ction, the re sults are the opposite. Id. In th e c a se a t ha

nd , App e lla

nt o bje c te d to Wal la c e ’s prop os e d te sti mony c on c e rn inghis administration of the HGNtest beca use (1 ) the test wa s not administered prope rly and (2) “[Appellant’s] got a ba d ey e, and the re’ s no expl anation for it.” On appe al, Appellant a rgues that Wal la c e ’s “ sc re e nin g ” of

A p p e l l a nt t o d e t e r m i n e f a c t or s o the r t

ha n a lc oh ol t

hat po te nti a lly

c on tr ibute to or ca use ny stag mus was lim i ted to Wallace’ s actua lly perf orming the test by

looking f or equa l pu pil size and e qu a l tr a c kin g . Thus , a c c or din g to Ap pe lla nt, Wal la c e ’s e mpl oy

me nt o f t he HG N t e st is not reliable. Appellant fur ther a rgues that the testimony was not only unhelpful to the jury , but 1

wa s a lso mis le a din g and

un fa ir ly pr e jud ic ia l. 2 Ba s e d o no ur r e v ie wo f

th e r e c o r d , w e ar e un a

b le to c o n c lu d e th a t A

p p e ll an t’ s o b

jections
wer e suff icient to bringthe rule in que stion as well as i ts precise and prope r application to the evidenc e in question. See M a rti nez , 9 1 S. W.3 d at 33 5. Ap pe lla nt’ s f ir st o bje c tio n r e fe rs br oa dly to Wallace’s a dminist ration of the HGN test. Appellant’s objection that there was “no expl anation” for his “bad ey e” relates only loosely at best to his argument on appea l that there is no evide nce that Wallace pr operly

scre ened A

ppel l an t prior to conduc ting the H GN test. As such, w e hold that Ap pe lla nt’ s ob je c tio n to the tr ia l c ourt wa s no t sp e c if ic e no ug h to inf

or m th e tr ia l c ourt

of the ba sis of the argume nt h e no w r a ise s o n a pp e a l so a s to a ff

or d th e tr ia l c ourt the op po rt un ity to ru le on

it.T he reco rd ref l ect s t hat A p p el l ant did no t co m p l et e t he specif i c d escri p t i o n of hi s o b ject i o n be f o re 3
r equ es t i n g t o c on du ct h i s v oi r di r e ex ami n at i on of W al l ac e. Fr om t h e f

ac e of t h e r ec or d, t h e mos t t h at c an be u n d e rs to o d o f A p p e llan t’s o b je c tio n is t h a t i t p e rta ine d to the H G N tes t.

G i v en t h e l ac k of

r equ i s i t e s pec i f

i ci t y pr es en t i n Appel l an t ’ s obj ec t i on , t h e t r i al c ou r t ’ s a bi l i t y t o r u l e on 4 such an ob ject i o n presupp o ses t hat t he subst ance o f A p p el l ant ’ s o b ject i o n co ul d be unde rs t o o d i n l i ght of t he co nt ext of hi s voi r di r e e xami nat i on of W al l ace . 4 See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33 .1 (a ); Martin ez , 91 S.W .3d at 336. Thus, we hold that Appellant has w aived the er ror, if a ny , of which he now complains. Appe llant’s first issue is overrule d.
Q UANT I F YI NG HGN RE S UL T S I N T ER M S OF B L OOD -A LCO HO L L EVEL In h i s s ec o nd issue, Appellant ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed in re fusing to exclude Wallace’ s testimony

that a fa iled perf

ormanc e on the HG

N test would indicate a blood-a lcohol level of 0.08 or hig her. The State ag ain contends that Appellant has fa iled to preser ve er ror. In addition to the require ment that the complaining party make a specific objection t o the trial court that c o m p o rt s with his arg ument on appea l, the rec ord must refle ct that the trial c ourt ruled on the complaining party ’s request, objection, or mot ion, either e x pressly or implicitly , or re fused to rule and the complaining party objected to suc h ref

usal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1(a). Her e, during his descr iption of how he t y pically conducts an HGN test, Wallace testified, “W h en It ak e t h e s t i mu l u s wi thm y fi n ger o v er as fa r a s y o ur e y e w i l l go , th e ey e wi l l s t artt i ck i n g, and it shows the subject is over .08, beca use at that – at t hat t ime, I ’m.

. . .” Appe llant interjecte d a g ener al objection and aske d permission from the trial c ourt to conduct a voir dire e x amination of 3 Wallace. The trial court g rante d Appellant’s reque st. Upon the conclusion of Appe llant’s voir dire
e xami na tio n, Ap pe lla

nt s tate d to the c ourt

that he ha d n o f

ur the r q ue sti on s o n v oir

dir e , a nd the State resumed its direc t examination. Appellant’ s o b

j ection was incomplete and la cked spe cificity . Fur thermore , Appellant’s
re qu e st fo r voi r dir e wa s g ra nte d. Ap pe lla

nt n e ith e r m a de a

su bs e qu e nt, mor e sp e c if

ic ob je c tio n to Wallace’ s statement re g arding the correlation between HGN t est results and blood alcohol leve l nor did he re qu e st a

ru lin g fr om t

he tr ia l c ourt

wi th r e g ard

to t he inc omp le te ob

je c tio n h e ini tia lly lodge d. There fore , we hold that Appellant has failed to pr eser ve the err or, if any , of which he now 4 complains. Appellant’s se cond issue is overr uled.5 D I S P OS I T I ON Havingoverr

uled Appellant’ s first and sec ond issues, we af fi rm the tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.



### S AM GRI FF I T H J ustice

Opinion delivere d September 17, 2008. Pane l co ns i s t ed of

Wor t hen , C. J. , Gri

f f i t h, J. , an d Hoyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBL I SH)