THE ISSUE OF SELF-DEFENSE STEMMING
TO, THE COURT OF APPEALS [IN]CORRECTLY APPLYING THE "RAISED BY THE EVIDENCE" STANDARD ESTABLISHED AND DEFINED.BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE.
APPELLANT CONTENDS POINT OF ERROR ONE FOR REVIEW SHOULD BE SUSTAINED.
POINT OF ERROR TWO FOR REVIEW
THE COURT OF APPEALS . REVERSIBLY ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN
POLICE OFFICERS HAVE NO PERSONAL. KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED OFFINSE, IT IS
REVERSIBLE ERROR. TO ALLOW THEM TOT TESTIFY THAT DEFENDANT WAS GUILTY OF ASSAULT
AND THAT SELF-DEFENSE DID NOT APPLY.
HERE, UNDOUBTEDLY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE. OVER DEFENSE OBJEC
TION^], THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY ALLOWED THE STATE TO ELICIT INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONY FROM BOTH STATE AGENT DEPUTY "BEATTY", IN WHOM VOICED HIS OPINION AS
TO APPELLANT'S GUILT, AND HIS PARTNER, STATE AGENT DEPUTY "WILKERSON'S" OPINE TESTIMONY AS TO IF ... ? APPELLANT WAS ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE DURING THE
ALLEGED COMMISSION OF ASSAULT.
WHY, [EXPLICITLY] THIS POINT OF ERROR DESERVES REVIEW?
THE COURT OF APPEALS MISSED IT CLAIMING OPINE THAT APPELLANT'S [OBJEC-. TIONS] TO DEPUTY TESTIMONY WAS INCONSISTENT - NOT VALID UNDER TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a) -or- APPLICABLE (ADMISSIONWISE) UNDER TEX. R. EVID. 701, 702.
[PROSECUTOR]: BASED ON .THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU VIEWED, BASED ON WHAT YOU SAW - PHYSICALLY SAW, WHAT YOU LEARNED FROM THE WITNESSES. AND WHAT YOU LEARNED FROM THE HOUSE AND HOW IT LOOKED, IS IT CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE - DID YOU REACH A CONCLUSION.AS TO WHAT HAD OCCURRED?
[BEATTY]: YES. THE CONCLUSION THAT WE CAME TO, per THE -
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: OBJECTION, JUDGE. THAT IS FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE, NOT THIS OFFICER.
THE COURT: I WILL ALLOW HIM TO ANSWER BASED ON HIS EXPER- ENCE AND TRAINING. YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. [BEATTY]: YES, MA'AM. A. THE CONCLUSION THAT WE CAME TOCTHAT NIGHT FROM THE STATEMENTS WE RECEIVED AND FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS WAS THAT AN ASSAULT HAD OCCURRED AND THAT KERTHINE TIMS WAS THE VICTIM.
[PROSECUTOR]: AND WHO DID YOU BELIEVE WAS THE DEFENDANT?
[BEATTY]: LONNIE JONES WAS BELIEVED TO BE THE ACTOR.
3 RR 25.
LATER, 4 RR 50, THE TRIAL COURT, IN ADDITION, ALLOWED DEPUTY "WILKERSON
TO TESTIFY OVER APPELLANT'S OBJECTION CONCERNING THAT JONES DID NOT ACT IN
SELF-DEFENSE,
[PROSECUTOR]: OKAY. BASED ON EVERYTHING YOU OBSERVED AT THE SCENE, WOULD ANYTHING LEAD YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE?
[DEFENSE. COUNSEL]: OBJECTION. THAT CALLS FOR A LEGAL CON CLUSION, YOUR HONOR. HE WASN'T THERE. HE WASN'T PRESENT. HE SAID HE HAD ALRFJADY LEFT THE SCENE.
THE COURT: I WILL ALLOW THE ANSWER BASED ON HIS - NOW THAT THE ISSUE HAS SOMEWHAT BEEN TRIED TO BE RAISED, I AM GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO ASK THAT QUESTION. SO GO AHEAD. YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION.
TO PROPERLY PRESERVE ERROR ON APPEAL, TEX. R. OF APP.. PROC. 33.1(a) "IN GENERAL" - AS A PREREQUISITE TO PRESENTING A COMPLAINT FOR APPELLATE REVIEW, THE RECORD MUST SHOW THAT: (1) THE COMPLAINT WAS MADE TO THE TRIAL COURT BY A TIMELY REQUEST, OBJECTION, OR MOTION THAT: (A) STATED THE