into MARGARET, and then you've got EAST NINTH, and they run parallel to each other.'" (Id.).
APPELLANT'S BRIEF is confusing in that the "REPORTER'S RECORD (RR, herein)" is mentioned at the beginning of "B. SUPPRESSION HEARING" and "C. TRIAL TESTIMONY" in the first paragraphs, pages 10 & 13, and VOLUME NUMBER, thereafter listing "ONLY PAGE NUMBER WITHOUT A LINE NUMBER (P, FOR PAGE NUMBER, herein, for comparison). APPELLEE'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON REMAND, however, lists "REPORTER'S RECORD (RR)" throughout, listing VOLUME NUMBER (V},_ LINE :NUMBER~(L)-i. and, PAGE NUMBER (P).
APPELLANT'S [RELATOR'S] BRIEF CLEARLY REVEALS THE STATE [APPELLEE] upon presentation to the jury removed the alleged evidence from the [STATE'S EXHIBIT 2] ENVELOPE "TO SHOW TO THE JURY ALONG WITH THE ALLEGED WRITTEN STATEMENT." At this moment, defense attorney "MADE AN OBJECTION TO THE EVIDENCE,.AND TO THE STATEMENT AS 1HEARSAY.'" SPECIFICALLY: "Also, the State was once again allowed to place the alleged written statement of the appellant AND EVIDENCE DESPrTE DEFENSE COUNSEL'S OBJECTION (HEARSAY); the statement was read for the jury. Ibid. at (RR, ~ ~' f) 23, 24 - 25. THE ENVELOPE in which the SUSPECTED COCAINE WAS PLACED (STATE'S EXHIBIT ~) and ~ DVD (State's Exhibit }_) WERE ALSO ADMITTED, without objection. Ibid. at (RR, ~ ~~~) 28- 29.(APPELLANT'S BRIEF, Id. at C. TRIAL TESTIMONY, page 13). "The following witness.was Detective Ray yokel, a 'CHAIN OF CUSTODY WITNESS.' Ibid. at (RR, V 3, P) 105. "The next witness was Karen Shumate, A Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Lab employee who 'TESTIFIED ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE CONTRABAND.'Ibid. at (RR, V 3, P) 109. She 'TESTIFIED THAT THE CONTRABAND WEIGHED 294.64 g.'" Ibid. at (RR, V 3, P) 112. (APPELLANT'S BRIEF, NO. 06-09-00225-CR, supra, Id. at c~ TRIAL TESTIMONY, page 16).
II
RELEVANT FACTS REVISITED
CUNFUSIVE TESTIMONY FROM HISTORICAL STANDPOINT (CONTINUED)
[STATE'S EXHIBIT 2]
STATE'S EXHIBIT 2 at the point of introduction into evidence was "THE ENVELOPE" that was introduced at the same time as STATE'S EXHIBIT 3 "THE DVD" without objection. (APPELLANT'S.BRIEF, supra, Id. at C. TRIAL TESTIMONY [RR, V 3, P 23, 24-25] pg. 13). STATE'S EXHIBIT 2 "THE ENVELOPE": the purpose of Detective Ray YokEd's testcimony is to establish "THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY" through the sealing and initialing I coding of "THE ENVELOPE" to be sent to the CRIME LAB. STATE'S EXHIBIT 2 "THE ENVELOPE":the purpose of Karen Shumate's testimony is to establish the procedures in "THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY UPON RECEIPT OF 'THE ENVELOPE'" with the ways and means upon which she checks the sealing, opening, and resealing of "THE ENVELOPE~ n She also "TESTIFIED ABaJT THE NATURE OF THE CONTRABAND," and "THAT THE CONTRABAND WEIGHED 294.64 g. (APPELLANT'S BRIEF, supra, Id. at C. TRIAL TESTIMONY [RR, v 3, p 105, 109, 112] pg. 16). DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S, was precisely, "NO OBJECTION TO STATE'S EXHIBIT 2, 'THE ENVELOPE' AS PERTAINING TO CHAIN OF CUS'IDDY, NATURE OF THE CONTRABAND, AND WEIGHT OF CONTRABAND," Id., supra. HOWEVER, in a DELUSIONAL MISCHARATERIZATION OF THE "NO OBJECTION STATED AT THIS POINT