No.

__________ I N T HE C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS OF T EXAS

G REG S ALDINGER Petitioner

v
.

THE S TATE OF T EXAS Appellee

On Petition f or Discretionary Review from Cause N o . 14

- 14

- 00402

- CR , affirming the conviction in Cause No. 1900496 , in Harris County Criminal Court at Law #15

P ETITIONER ’ S P ETITION FOR D ISCRETIONARY R EVIEW

Oral Argument Requested

J OSE C EJA Scheiner Law Group , P.C. TBN : 24067542 2211 Norfolk Ste. 735 Houston, Texas 77098 Phone: (713) 783

- 8998 Fax: (866 ) 798

- 9854 jose.ceja @ scheinerlaw.com

A

TTORNEY FOR P ETITIONER PD-1330-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 11/23/2015 4:34:43 PM Accepted 11/24/2015 11:52:10 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKII I DENTITY OF P ARTIES AND A TTORNEYS
P ETITIONER : G REG S ALD INGER
T RIAL P ROSECUTOR : R YAN M C L EAREN L

AUREN M ARFIN M ELISSA M UNOZ Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin Street, 6 th Floor H ouston, Texas 77002

A TTORNEYS AT T RIAL : G RANT S CHEINER Scheiner Law Group , P.C. 2211 Norfolk Ste. 735 Houston, Texas 77098

P RESIDING J UDGE AT T RIAL : H ON

. J IM A NDERSON Harris County Court at Law #15 Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin Street, 11 th floor Houston, Texas 77002

A TTORNEY FOR P ETITIONER : J OSE C EJA Scheiner Law Group , P.C. 2211 Norfolk Ste. 735 Houston, Texas 77098

A TTORNEY FOR S TATE ON A PPEAL : E RIC K UGLER Assistant Public Defender Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin St., 6 th Floor Houston, Texas 77002III T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
I DENTITY OF P ARTIES AND A TTORNEYS

................................ ................................ .............. II
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. III
S TATEMENT R EGARDING O RAL A RGUMENT

................................ ................................ ........ 2
S TATEMENT OF THE C ASE

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 2
S TATEMEN T OF P ROCEDURAL H ISTORY

................................ ................................ ................ 2
G ROUNDS FOR R EVIEW

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 3

R EASONS FOR R EVIEW

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 3
A RGUMENT

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 3 Summary of Relevant Facts

................................ ................................ ............................... 3
I. G ROUND O NE : The Court of Appeals erred by concluding that although the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting the search warrant and affidavit, such error was harmless

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 5
II. G ROUND T WO : The Court of Appeals erred b y holding Petitioner’s complaints regarding the trial judge’s refusal to allow trial counsel to voir dire panel on proof beyond a reasonable doubt were not preserved

................................ ............................. 8 III. Ground Three: The Court of Appeals erred by holding P etitioner’s complaints regarding the trial judge’s refusal to allow trial counsel to voir dire panel on police credibility were not preserved

................................ ................................ ......................... 10
P RAYER

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 12
C ERTIFICATE OF S ERVICE

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 13
C ERTIFICATE OF C OMPLIANCE

................................ ................................ ............................. 13
A PPENDIX

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 141 Index of Authorities

State Cases Bryant v. State , 391 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)

................................ ..................... 10
Caldwell v. State , 818 S.W.2d 790 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

................................ ................. 10
Cole v. State , 839 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)

................................ .......................... 7
Fuller v. State , 363 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)

................................ ............. 8, 9, 10 Garza v. State , 126 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)

................................ ...................... 10 Gonzalez v. State , 3 S.W.3d 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)

................................ ................... 11 Johnson v. State , 967 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)

................................ ..................... 8 Jones v. State, 223 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

................................ ...................... 11 King v. State , 953 S .W.2d 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)

................................ .......................... 8
Lankston v. State , 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)

................................ ............... 10 Saldinger vs. State, Cause No. 14

- 14

- 00402

- CR (Tex. App.

-- Houston [14th Dist.] Ju ly 30, 2015)

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... i, 2, 5, 14
Zillender v. State , 557 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)

................................ ................ 10
State Statutes and Rules Tex. R. App. Proc. R. 44.2

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 7
T EX

. R. E VID . 803(8)(B)

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 72 S TATEMENT R EGARDING O RAL A RGUMENT Oral argument is requested. The issues presented are of moderate complexity and might properly be resolved on the briefs, but Petitioner believes he can better illuminate them with oral argument and by answering any q uestions this Court may

have.

S TATEMENT OF THE C ASE
Petitioner Greg Saldinger was convicted after a jury trial of Driving W hile
Intoxicated

– Class “ A

. ” The issues raised on appeal focus on the trial court’s
erroneous admission of a search warrant and a ffidavit, as well as the trial court
erroneous limitations on defense counsel’s voir dire

. S TATEMENT OF P ROCEDURAL H ISTORY
Petitioner was charged with Driv ing While Intoxicated (DWI)

– Class “A ” ( s econd o ffense) after being arrested on June 6, 2013 . Afte r a jury trial starting on February 11 , 2014 and concluding on February 12 , 2014 , Petitioner was convicted and
sentenced to one ( 1 ) year in the county jail, suspended and probated for two (2) years
. On July 30, 2015, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirme d Petitioner ’s conviction in Saldinger vs. State, Cause N o. 14

- 14

- 00402

- CR (Tex. App.

-- Houston [14th Dist.] July 30, 2015)

. On August 13, 2015 Petitioner filed a Mot ion for En Banc Reconsideration, which was denied on September 22, 2015.3 G ROUNDS FOR R EVIEW
G ROUND O NE : The Court of Appeals erred by concluding that although the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting the search warrant and affidavit, such error
was harmless

G ROUND T WO : The Court of Appeals erred by holding Petitioner ’s complaints regarding the trial judge’s refusal to allow trial counsel to voir dire panel on proof beyond a reasonable doubt were not preserved

G ROUND T HREE : The Court of Appeals erred by holding Petitioner ’s complaints regarding the trial judg e’s refusal to allow trial counsel to voir dire panel on police credibility were not preserved

R EASONS FOR R EVIEW
1. The Court of Appeals has decided an important question of state law in a way that conflicts with the applicable decisions of the Texas Court o f Criminal Appeals (applicable to all grounds).

2. The Court of Appeals has violated Petitioner ’s rights to adequate voir dire under
the Texas and federal constitution s (applicable to grounds two and three)

. A RGUMENT Summary of R elevant F acts
Petitioner Greg Saldinger’s jury trial for DWI began on February 11, 2014. The
trial court limited voir dire to 30 minutes per side. Near the end of Petitioner’s voir dire , defense counsel asked the venire panel if any member would be more likely to believe4 the testimony of a police officer over any other witness , even without knowing anything about the officer’s background. (2 C.R. at 101

- 102). Thirteen jurors responded affirmatively. (2 C.R. at 102). Immediately after the aforementioned 13 venire members indicated they held a bias in favor of the police, the trial judge told Petitioner he was out of time. (2 C.R. at
101

- 102). Petitioner requested additional time to further question these venire
members but the trial judge denied the request. (2 C.R. at 109).

Petitioner a lso requested additional time to cover the topic of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt . (2 C.R. at 103). Petitioner elaborated that he wished to address the standard of proof by “compar[ing] reasonable doubt to other standards of proof,”
and the standards in civil cases, and family law cases. (2 C.R. at 102

- 103). The trial judge denied Petitioner request. (2 C.R. at 103). Later, in a bill of exception to the trial court, Petitioner offered as an exhibit a color

- chart detailing the various legal standards of pr oof under Texas law , which counsel explained he intended to use as an aid to explain the concept of reasonable doubt

. (3 C.R. at 142). The trial judge said it would not have changed his mind. Id

. Petitioner also moved to strike for cause the 13 venire mem bers who indicated they held a bias in favor of the police. (2 C.R. at 109). The trial judge denied the request as to th o se venire mem bers, and also denied Petitioner ’s request for additional peremptory strikes. (2 C.R. at 109). After the jury was seated, but before it was sworn,

Petitioner identified a juror who was among those who had indicated a bias in favor5 of the police, who m Petitioner said he would have struck , if he had been granted additional peremptory strikes (2 C.R. at 114). The trial judge ove rruled Petitioner ’s objection to this juror. (2 C.R. at 114). During the State’s case

- in

- chief , the trial judge admitted a blood search warrant and affidavit drafted by police officers, over hearsa y and confrontation objections of

Petitioner . (3 C.R. at 15 7). The affidavit essentially served as a police report and, indeed, Houston Police Officer Joel Quezada admitted during cross examination that
the affidavit included “cut

- and

- paste” portions from his actual police report. In
addition to observations of Pe titioner ’s alleged intoxication, the affidavit contained

affiant Officer Quezada’s claim s that on “many occasions,” he has had his “suspicions [regarding intoxication] confirmed by breath, blood, or urine samples,” and that he
has “found these forensic tes ts to be reliable in supporting [his] opinions and observations on consumed substances and levels of impairment.” (4 C.R. at 15a). At trial, Petitioner never challenged the validity of the search warrant and affidavit and there was no legal reason for its admission as an exhibit to the jury.

I. G ROUND O NE : The Court of Appeals erred by concluding that although the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting the search warrant and affidavit, such error was harmless In finding the improper admission of the blood search warrant affidavit harmless, the Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence contained in the search
warrant was introduced elsewhere. Saldinger , Cause N o. 14

- 14

- 00402

- CR at *10

. Although portions of the affidavit may have been elicited through oral testimony of6 Officer Quezada , the most unfairly prejudicial statements in the affidavit were not
elicited elsewhere in the trial and did not reach the jury by any other means

. For

exa mple, Officer Quezada’s 1 affidavit statement that he has found blood testing to be “reliable in supporting [his] opinions and observations on consumed substances and levels of impairment,” and that such tests have confirmed his observations on “many

occasi ons” does not appear anywhere else in the trial record.

The Court of Appeals ’ contention that these statements were introduced through the State’s blood expert is not supported by the record and fails to grasp the prejudicial nature of such statements in the context of a DWI trial

. Id. at 11. Although the State’s blood analyst testified regarding the science of blood testing, and the analysis done in this case, at no time did she equate alleged observations of

intoxication

– in this or any case

– with a sp ecific blood alcohol content (BAC), which is what Officer Quezada ’s affidavit claimed he is able to do, and did in this case

. Quezada’s affidavit’s assertion that his observations have been corroborated by blood testing on “many occasions” was particularl y prejudicial , because Quezada simultaneously bolster ed the reliability of his own observation s and investigation, as
well as the accuracy of the blood test in Petitioner ’s case

. Additionally, by admitting
the affidavit

– which contained the signature of a judge

– the trial judge essentially

1 Houston Police Department Officer Joel Quezada

– who was the affiant and lead officer on the
case

– has been fired from the Houston Police Department and is under Federal indictment for his involvement in the robbery of an armored vehicle in Decembe r 2013

– two months before he testified in this trial.7 gave a judicial stamp of approval to the investigation, observations, and credibility of Officer Joel Quezada, as well as the other officers referred to in the affidavit. 2
Nevertheless, e ven had the affidavit in questi on contained only statements and

assertions elicited during other parts of the trial, Quezada’s testimony that the
affidavit contained “cut

- and

- paste” portions from his offense report render ed it
inadmissible and unreliable under T EX

. R. E VID . 803(8)(B) ; See Cole v. State , 839 S.W.2d 798, 811

- 12 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (en banc) (op. on reh'g) (quoting legislative history of FED.R.EVID. 803(8)(B) and stating that the Rule does not “exclude only ‘offense reports' pertaining to observations at the scene of the crime or arrest ....”)

. Permitting the erroneous admission before the jury of a police officer’s
affidavit that contained cut

- and

- paste portions from his own offense report, would

eviscerate T EX

. R. E VID

. 803 (8) (B) and open the door to widescale admission at trial of offense reports, so long as the contents in reports could be elicited during other parts of the trials.

Because the error here is non

- constitutional, the applicable harm analysis is set out in Rule 44.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure , which establishes that

a non

- con stitutional error “that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” Id . This Court has explained that a “criminal conviction should not be

2 In his closing, the prosecutor argued that the magistrate was “at least the fourth person” to review the evidence, and implied the magistrate was satisfied with the investigation. (3 C.R. 364) (“The magistrate analyzed all of the evidence, and that is at least the fourth person that has come into contact with Mr. Saldinger and his case. That magistrate, looking from what Officer Troost said, and Officer Quezada, said that is enough for a warrant.”)8 overturned for non

- constitutional error if the appellate court, after examining the record as a whole, h as fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” Johnson v. State , 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) citing King v. State , 953 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)

. There can be no such assurances in this case. In a trial where the only genuinely disputed issue was intoxication, the i nfluence of an affidavit that bolsters the purported reliability of the investigation, the officers’ observations, and the blood test
cannot be overstated. Nor can the danger of allowing the erroneous admission before

the jury of an affidavit pulled direct ly from an offense report , over timely and continued objection by defense counsel, be overstated. The Court of Appeals erred as to this ground.

I I

. G ROUND T WO : The Court of Appeals erred by holding Petitioner ’ s complaints regarding the trial judge’s refusa l to allow trial counsel to voir dire panel on proof beyond a reasonable doubt were not preserved
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that Petitioner did not preserve error regarding the trial judge’s refusal to permit him to ask questions regarding p roo f beyond a reasonable doubt

. The Court of Appeals erroneously concluded that

Petitioner ’s proposal constituted no more than a “ general topic for discussion. ”

The Court of Appeals ’ holding is contrary to this Court’s decision in Fuller v.

State , 363 S.W.3 d 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) , a case where trial counsel was prevented from addressing the standard of proof in a virtually identical fashion as in

this case

. In reversing t he Court of Appeals , this Court noted that:9 Granted, we have often said that a trial court has discretion to prohibit an otherwise

- proper area of inquiry if the proposed questions are so vague or broad in nature as to constitute a global fishing expedition . But that principle does not apply here. It was appropriate for the Petitioner to explain the contrast among the various standards of proof in this case.
Id . at 588. (internal citations and quotations omitted).

In Fuller , trial counsel stated he would “like to ask [the jury] if they understand that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden that we have anywhere in our legal system.” Id . In this case, counsel stated that he “ wanted to compare
reasonable doubt to other standar ds of proof, standards in criminal

– in civil cases, in family law cases. There are standards of proof: Preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, scintilla of evidence that I needed to go over with the jury
because I don’t think reasona ble doubt has been covered that way with the venire panel.” (2 C.R. at 102

- 103). In sum, the only difference between the proposed voir dire topic in Fuller and this case are minor variations in wording. The Court of Appeals ’ conclusion th at the topic here was not sufficiently tailored and could have “encompassed proper and improper inquiries” ignores this Court’s precedent and reveals an overly narrow and rigid application of this Court’s rules regarding preservation of error

. This Court h as held that one of the purpose s of requiring trial counsel to preserve error is to inform the judge of the basis of the objection and give him the change to make a ruling on it. Garza v. State , 126 S.W.3d 79 , 82 (Tex. Crim. App.10 2004)

. 3 No “talismanic” words are needed to preserve error as long as the court can understand from the context what the complaint is. Zillender v. State, 557 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) , Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907, 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) ; see also Bryant v. State , 391 S.W.3d 86, 92 (Tex. Crim. App.

— 2012) (no “magic words” are required to preserve error ). Applying these principles to the context of voir dire , this Court h as held that “a question that is so vague or broad as to constitute a global fishing expedition is not proper, and fails to preserve error because it is impossible for a reviewing court to determine if the questions is relevant and properly phrased.” Caldw ell v. State, 818 S.W.2d 790, 793 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991 )

. These concerns are simply not present here , and it was clear to all the parties what Petitioner’s proposed voir dire topic was

. This proposed topic was neither vague, nor broad, nor was there a question as to whether it wa s relevant or properly phrased

– not least of all because the same voir dire topic has already been found proper in

Fuller

. The Court of Appeals erred as to this ground

. II I

. Ground Three : The Court of Appeals erred by holding Petitioner ’ s complaints regarding the trial judge’s refusal to allow trial counsel to voir dire panel on police credibility were not preserved
After t hirteen members of the venire panel indicated they would be more likely to believe a police witness over a citizen witness, even without knowing about the

3 The other main purpose, “to give opposing counsel the chance to remove the objection or to provide other testimony , ” is not applicable in the context of this proposed voir dire topic

. Id

.11 facts of the case, or the police witness’ background, Petitioner ’s counsel requested
additional time to further question these members of the venire panel on that topic, but was denied additional time by the trial court. (2 C.R. at 101

- 102; 2 C .R. at 109).

The Court of Appeals erroneously held that because Petitioner did not submit questions on this topic , error was not preserved. Not only was this topic narrowly tailored, and hardly a “fishing expedition,” it was imperative that Petitioner be allowed to further inquire into the extent of these
venire members’ bias. See e.g., Gonzalez v. State , 3 S.W.3d 915, 917 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (duty of diligence requires counsel to ask follow

- up questions after a potential bias is discovered). Although it is true that Petit ioner did not submit questions , any further voir
dire on the topic of police credibility to these thirteen members of the venire panel would necessarily have been narrowly tailored. Given the context of Petitioner ’s conversation with the trial judge, there was no doubt that on this topic, Petitioner solely wished to inquire further as to this narrow issue , and lay a satisfactory predicate to strike these members of the venire panel for cause

. (2 C.R. at 109). A dditional voir
dire on this topic was necessary for counsel to intelligently exercise his peremptory strikes, or to lay the necessary predicate to excuse the jurors for cause. See Jones v. State,
223 S.W.3d 379 , 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (before a juror can be excused for cause, he must state he cannot follow the law). The Court of Appeals erred as to this ground.12 P RAYER
Petitioner prays that this Court reverse the judgment in the trial court below
and enter an order of acquittal, or should this Court determine an acquittal is not warranted, reverse Petitioner ’s case for a new trial. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jose Ceja J OSE C EJA Scheiner Law Group TBN : 24067542 2211 Norfol k Ste. 735 Houston, Texas 77098 Phone: (713) 783

- 8998 Fax: (866 ) 798

- 9854 jose.ceja@scheinerlaw.com13 C ERTIFICATE OF S ERVICE I certify that a copy of this Petitioner ’s Petition for Discretionary Review has been served upon the Harris County District Attorney's Office

– Appellate Section and upon the State Prosecuting Attorney , on November 23 , 2015 by electronic service

. /s/ Jose Ceja J OSE C EJA
C ERTIFICATE OF C OMPLIANCE This document complies with the typeface requirements of T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.4(e) because it has been prepared in a conventional typeface no smaller than 14

- point for text and 12

- point for footnotes. This document also complies with the page
and word count limitations of T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.4(i), if applicable, because it contai ns 2, 316 words excluding portions not to be counted under T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.4 (i)(1).

/s/ Jose Ceja J OSE C EJA14 A PPENDIX
A. Opinion, Saldinger v. State , Cause N o. 14

- 14

- 00402

- CR (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] July 30, 20 15)Affirmed and Opinion filed July 30 , 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00402

- CR

GREG SALDINGER , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No
. 15 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1900496

OPINION

In three issues, appellant challenges his driving while intoxicated conviction on the basis that the trial court erred in denying his challenges of venire members for cause, limiting his time for voir dire, and admitting into evidenc e the search
warrant authorizing his blood draw for a determination of blood alcohol content and officer’s supporting affidavit

. We affirm. Background A jury found appellant guilty of driving while intoxicated. The trial court2 assessed punishment at one ye ar of confinement in county jail, suspended the sentence, and placed appellant on community supervision for two year s
. During voir dire, the trial court instructed appellant’s attorney to “close” because he was out of time

. At that point, the following ex change occurred: [Counsel:] This is the final question, and I’ ll go through as quickly as I can

. . . . All things being equal, who would you be more likely to believe if they testified, a police officer or a citizen accused? [Juror No. 1 : ] Depends on wha t they have to say. [Counsel : ] Right, depending on what they had to say. Without knowing would you be more predisposed to believe a police officer or a person accused? THE COURT: Counsel, the State went over [its time limit] without their poll [of individu al venire members] , so your poll is ending, and just close it. You ’ re past your time, well past your time. I stopped the State, I ’ ll be stopping you.

. . . [Counsel : ] All right. So, we ’ ll have to do it this way. How many people would be, without even knowi ng the background of the police officer, not knowing anything about him, before he even testifies, would be more likely to believe what a police officer says than what a citizen says?
Thirteen venire members raised their hands in response to the question. The trial court denied appellant’s challenges to those prospective jurors for cause. Blood samples were taken from a ppellant pursuant to a search warrant to ascertain his blood alcohol content. During trial, t he trial court admitted into evidence the warra nt and officer’s supporting affidavit over appellant’s hearsay objection. 1

1 The warrant and affidavit were admitted as one exhibit.3 Discussion Appellant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) “refusing to strike venire members who indicated they held a bias in favor of the police”; (2) “ preven ting and limiting” appellant’s counsel from examining venire member s regarding their potential for bias toward officer testimony and from discussing reasonable doubt; and (3) admitting into evidence the search warrant authorizing appellant’s blood draw and officer’s supporting affidavit

. I. Refusal to Excuse Jurors for Cause within Trial Court’s Discretion In his first issue, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his challenges for cause to the thirteen venire members who raised the ir hands in response to his counsel’s question: “ How many people [,] without

. . . knowing the background of the police officer

. . . before he even testifies, would be more likely to believe what a police officer says than what a citizen says? ” 2
A defendan t may challenge a prospective juror for cause who is biased or prejudiced against the defendant or the law applicable to the case

. Comeaux v. State , 445 S.W.3d 745, 749 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

. A trial judge must excuse the prospective juror if bias or prej udice would impair his or her ability to carry out the oath and instructions in accordance with the law. Id

. Before the judge excuses the prospective juror, t he law must be explained to him or her , and the challenger must show that the prospective juror un derstood the law and still could not overcome his or her prejudice. Id

. We may reverse a trial court’s ruling on a challenge for cause only for a clear abuse of discretion b ecause the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate a venire member’ s demea nor and responses

. Davis v. State , 329 S.W.3d

2 Appellant asserts that fourteen jurors rai sed their hands, but appellant counted one juror twice.4 798, 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) ; Gardner v. State , 306 S.W.3d 274, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) . We give particular deference to the trial court’s decision when a venire member’s answers are ambiguous, vacillatin g, unclear, or contradictory

. See Gardner , 306 S.W.3d at 296.
T he Court of Criminal Appeals has long required trial counsel to ask specific questions to uncover bias during voir dire. White v. State , 181 S.W.3d 514, 519 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2005), aff’ d , 2 25 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Gonzales v. State , 3 S.W.3d 915, 917 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) ); see also Tate v. State , 414 S.W.3d 260, 264 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (noting, in juror misconduct case, “[c] ounsel must ask spec ific questions, not rely on broad ones, to [determine whether a juror withheld material information during voir dire] and must ask follow

- up questions after a potential bias is discovered ”). Moreover, t he Court of Criminal Appeals repeatedly has addressed challenges for cause against prospective jurors who state a belief that police officers tend to be more credible witnesses than others

. See, e.g., Feldman v. State , 71 S.W.3d 738, 747 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ; Ladd v. State , 3 S.W.3d 547, 560 (Tex. Crim. App

. 1999); Jones v. State , 982 S.W.2d 386, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) ; Smith v. State , 907 S.W.2d 522, 530

– 31 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)

. C omplete impartiality is not required because it is human nature to give certain types of witness a slight edge

over others

. See Jones , 982 S.W.2d at 389. Jurors are not expected to set aside their natural skepticism during trial. See id. ; see also Simpson v. State , No. 01

- 12

- 00380

- CR, 2014 WL 2767126, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] June 17, 2014 , pet. ref’d ) (mem. op.). Here, a ppellant’s counsel asked a broad question in the abstract, regarding whether the venire members would be more likely to believe a police officer over someone else, without any qualifying information. Prospective j urors responded to5 this question by raising their hands. Given that complete impartiality is not required, t his response to counsel’s general question about bias toward police officer testimony alone did not establish bias as a matter of law. E.g., Feldman , 71 S.W.3d at 747 (“ That [the veni re member] was simply more or less skeptical of a certain category of witness did not make him subject to a challenge for cause. ”); Ladd , 3 S.W.3d at 560 (“T hus, [the venire member] was not challengeable for cause because he would tend to believe policemen

. . . slightly more than others .”). Accordingly , the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in refusing to strike the se prospective jurors for cause

. 3 We overrule appellant’s first issue.
II. Complaint s Regarding Voir Dire Time Limit Not Preserved In his second issue, appellant complains that the trial court , in declining to extend appellant’s allotted time for voir dire, prevented his counsel from “sufficiently address[ing] the venire panel regarding witness credibility and police bias” and “addres s[ing] proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” 4 Appellant asserts that in refusing to allow his counsel more time to address these topics, the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel under the United States Constitution and right to be heard un der the Texas Constitution. See U.S. Const.

3 A defendant must establish harm for the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause by showing on the record that he (1) asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause which was denied ; (2) used a peremptory challenge on the complained

- of venire member; (3) exhausted his peremptory challenges; (4) requested additional strikes and his request was denied; and (5) identified an objectionable juror who sat on the jury that would have been struck otherwi se. Comeaux , 445 S.W.3d at 749 ; Davis , 329 S.W.3d at 807

. By complying with these steps, the defendant shows that he actually needed the peremptory strike that he was forced to use on a biased juror. Comeaux , 445 S.W.3d at 750. Because we find no error, we need not reach the harm analysis. See id . (noting defendant must establish harm “[w]hen the trial judge denies a valid challenge for cause”)

. 4 At trial, appellant asked also to discuss sentencing with the venire. That topic is not argued on appeal.6 amend. VI; Tex. Const. art. I, § 10.
The trial court has broad discretion over jury selection

. Woods v. State , 152 S.W.3d 105, 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)

. Without the trial cou rt’ s ability to impose reasonable l imits, voir dire could go on indefinitely. Id

. Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse the trial court ’ s refusal to allow defense counsel additional time on voir dire. Dhillon v. State , 138 S.W.3d 583, 58 7 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, p et. struck)

. A trial court abuses its discretion only when it prohibits a proper question about a proper area of inquiry

. Woods , 152 S.W.3d at 108

. A question is proper if it seeks to discover a prospective juror’ s views on an issue applicable to the case. Id

. To preserve error regarding the manner of voir dire, the record must reflect a proper question that the trial court has not allowed venire members to answer

. Dhillon , 138 S.W.3d at 589

. That the trial court generally disapproved of an area of inquiry from which proper questions could have been formulated is not enough because the trial court might have allowed the proper question had it been submitted for the court ’ s consideration. Sells v. State , 121 S.W.3d 748, 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)

. During voi r dire, the trial court instructed appellant’s counsel to “close , ” because he had run out of time : “Counsel . . . your poll is ending, and just close it. You’re past your time, well past your time. I stopped the State, I’ll be stopping you.” 5 Appellant’s c ounsel then asked the panel the above

- referenced question , regarding whether any venire members “ would be more likely to believe what a police officer says than what a citizen says

. ” 6 Appellant’s counsel did not submit

5 Th e trial court had informed the State at the beginning of its voir dire that it had 20 to 25 minutes. Also, during appellant’s voir dire, the trial court gave appellant’s counsel a five minute warning and told him to “use [his] time wisely.”
6 A question th at is so vague or broad to constitute a global fishing expedition is not proper and fails to preserve error because it is impossible for a reviewing court to determine if the question is relevant and properly phrased. Dhillon , 138 S.W.3d at 589 . As address ed above,7 a ny other question s regarding this to pic to the trial court for consideration that the trial court prevented him from asking. Accordingly, appellant did not preserve error as to his complaint that the trial court prevented him from addressing witness credibility and police bias

. See id

. After the trial court informed appellant’s counsel that his time for voir dire had elapsed, he object ed on the basis that he had not “covered” the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt , but he did not submit any questions on this issue to the trial court for consideration. He stated only that he wanted to compare reasonable doubt to other standards of proof. 7 That proposal presented only a general topic for discussion

. 8 Counsel did not submit narrowly tailored questions, and the proposed topic could have e ncompassed proper and improper inquiries. See Dhillon , 138 S.W.3d at 589 ; see also Godine v. State , 874 S.W.2d 197, 200

- 01 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (stating a trial court should not have to “anticipate the form in which a specific que stion emanating from a topic will be asked”). Thus, a ppellant did not preserve error as to h is complaint that the trial court prevented him from addressing the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt

. 9 See Dhillon , 138 S.W.3d at 589; Godine , 874 S.W.2d at 200

. We overrule appellant’s second issue. this question was broad and abstract.
7 Appellant’s counsel stated: I wanted to compare reasonable doubt to other standards of proof

. . . [p] reponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, scintilla of evidence that I needed to go over with the jury because I don ’ t think reasonable doubt has been covered that way with this venire panel.
8 T he trial c ourt responded : “ First, I covered both of those topic s thoroughly [in the court’s initial voir dire . Second, t ]he jury commented on bo th of those topics. Third, I gave both sides equal time, both sides equal lead. The topics have been covered, your objection is overruled. ”
9 We thus do not address whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to extend appellant’s allotted t ime for voir dire.8 III. No Harm in Admitting Search Warrant and Affidavit In his third issue, appellant complains that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence over appellant’s hearsay objection the search

war rant authorizing his blood draw and the officer’s supporting affidavit

. The State concedes that search warrants and supporting affidavits generally are inadmissible hearsay but asserts that they were admissible in this case because appellant raised the iss ue of probable cause in the presence of the jury. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence but the error was harmless. We review a hearsay challenge to the trial court ’ s admission of evidence for an abuse of discreti on. Lyle v. State , 418 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.)

. We must uphold the trial court’ s ruling if it is reasonably supported by the record and is correct under any theory of law applicable to the case. Id

. T he recitals cont ained in a se a rch warrant and supporting affidavit generally

are in admissible hearsay. Foster v. State , 779 S.W.2d 845, 857

– 58 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); Ortiz v. State , 999 S.W.2d 600, 607 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). An exception applies when a defendant makes probable cause an issue before the jury. Baxter v. State , 66 S.W.3d 494, 49 8 n.2 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2001, pet. ref ’ d)

. The existence of probable cause is generally a question of law not presented to the jury. Madden v. State , 242 S.W. 3d 504, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ; Grubbs v. State , 440 S.W.3d 130, 138 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2013 , pet. ref’d). The trial judge decides the necessary quality and quantum of proof necessary to establish probable cause under the circumstances of a given

case. See Madden , 242 S.W.3d at 511 (applying principle to determination of reasonable suspicion). However, if the facts necessary to establish probable cause are disputed, the jury may be required to decide whether the officer’s belief in9 those fa cts was reasonable. See id. ; see also Grubbs , 440 S.W.3d at 138 (holding defendant was not entitled to jury instruction on probable cause because “there was no conflict in the evidence that raised a disputed fact issue material to the legal question of pro bable cause”)

. The State argues appellant made probable cause an issue because appellant argued to the jury that police officers mistakenly believed he was intoxicated. We disagree. Appellant did not challenge the facts upon which the officer s claim to hav e relied in deciding to arrest him

. Appellant ’s assertion that officers mistook his demeanor for intoxication , standing alone, does not implicate probable cause; it implicates the merits of the offense, in other words, whether appellant actually was intoxi cated , regardless of the officers’ beliefs. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the search warrant and supporting affidavit into evidence. See Warr v. State , 418 S.W.3d 617, 619 & n.1 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (acknowl edging, unless a defendant disputes the existence of a warrant or makes probable cause an issue before the jury, “ it is error for the trial court to admit the affidavit and the search warrant over an objection that they contain hearsay ”) ; see also Gonzales v. State , No. 14

- 00

- 00702

- CR, 2002 WL 122867, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 31, 2002, pet. ref’ d) (mem. op.) (holding, when probable cause was not contested, trial court erroneously admitted hearsay statements in arrest warrant and affidavit over defendant’ s objection ).
We now consider whether the trial cour t’ s error warrants revers al

. We may not reverse a conviction due to erroneous admission of hearsay testimony unless we determine that it affected appellant ’ s substantial rights. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b); Taylor v. State , 268 S.W.3d 571, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). An error affects a substantial right when it has a substantial and injurious effect or influence10 in determining the jury ’ s verdict. Taylor , 268 S.W.3d at 592

. N on - constitutional

error (such as the erroneous admission of hearsay testimony) is harmless if we have fair assurance that the error had no influence or only a slight influence on the jury

. Id

. The improper admission of evidence is harmless if the same evidence is presente d at trial without objection, either before or after the complained

- of ruling

. Leday v. State , 983 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) ; Amador v. State , 376 S.W.3d 339, 345 (Tex. App.

— Hous ton [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’ d)

. We therefore examine the warr ant and affidavit to identify information that was admitted without objection

— or properly admitted

— through other evidence. See Gonzales , 2002 WL 122867, at * 2. Officer Quezada, who testified at trial, executed the affidavit in support of the search warrant

. 10 The affidavit sets forth information regarding (1) Quezeda’s training, background, and qualifications ; (2) facts involving the traffic stop of appellant that Quezeda learned from two other officers who participated in appellant’s arrest; (3) Quezeda’s p ersonal observations of appellant at the “central intox” station , including appellant’s performance on field sobriety tests conducted in the “intox room” ; (4) appellant’s refusal to provid e a blood sample; and (5) Quezeda’s identification of appellant by h is driver’s license. This information was presented at trial without objection through the live testimony of the three officers involved in appellant’s arrest

. 11

10 The warrant does not contain any facts. It authorizes officers to search appellant and obtain his blood samples. We note that although appellant’s counsel objected to the trial court’s admission of the warrant and affidavit into eviden ce, he did not object to Quezeda’s testimony about obtaining the warrant. State’s counsel asked, “[T]o have a search warrant issued, what do you need to do?” Quezeda replied, “Make sure we have probable cause for the stop, signs of intoxication, and a judg e has to sign it.”
11 The officers also identified appellant at trial.11 Quezeda also opined in the affidavit that the method used by the State to test blood samples is “reliable.” Appellant contends that Quezeda’s opinion “ appear s nowhere else in the record, and is highly prejudicial. ” Although Quezeda did not testify at trial regarding the reliability of the State’s blood sample testing , the State’s toxicology expert t estified without objection that the blood sample test results obtained in this case were “accurate and valid.” Quezeda’s opinion was consistent with the toxicology expert’s opinion. We conclude that Quezada’s opinion on the reliability of blood sample test ing could have influenced the jury only slightly , if at all, because it was consistent with other evidence presented at trial without objection

. See Amador , 376 S.W.3d at 345 (holding similar statements made by another witness amounted to evidence that had little or no influence on jury).
We conclude the improper admission of the arrest warrant and the affidavit did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in det ermining the jury’ s verdict because the information in the search warrant and af fidavit was otherwise presented at trial without objection

. See id

. Therefore, the trial court’s error in admitting the warrant and affidavit was harmless. We overrule appellant’s third issue. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

/s/ Martha Hill Jamison Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Busby, and Brown. Publish

— T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).