GROUNDS FOR THE RULING THAT THE COMPLAINING PARTY SOUGHT FROM THE TRIAL COURT WITH SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY TO MAKE THE TRIAL COURT AWARE OF THE COMPLAINT, UNLESS THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS WERE APPARANT FROM THE CONTEXT; .. .
[OBVIOUS]LY HEREIN, VALID DEFENSE OBJECTIONS WERE -MADE (SUPRA) WITH SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY. AND THUS, APPARANT SUCH WAS "PERCEPTABLE" FROM THE
CONTEXT .. .
ALTHOUGH, THE TRIAL COURT SPEEDILY INTERVENED - OVERRULING APPELLANT'S
OBJECTIONS [ABSENT COUNSEL A CHANCE TO. AMPLIFY] - AS NOTED OBJECTIONS WERE NOT A MODEL OF CLARITY; APPELLANT, HOWEVER, ARGUES SAID OBJECTIONS WERE [SUFFIC IENTLY SPECIFIC] - ENOUGH TO INFORM THE TRIAL COURT THAT.HE OBJECTED TO DEPUTY "BEATTYS" OPINION IN REGARDS TO "CONCLUSION AS TO.WHAT OCCURRED ...?" AND
SAME THUS, DEPUTY "WILKERSON1S" OPINE REGARDING A "LEGAL CONCLUSION" AS TO
APPELLANT NOT ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE. SEE JAMES v. SATE, 335 S.W.3d 719,
725 (TEX.APP.2011).
ALTHOUGH AND AWHILE BOTH LAY AND EXPERT WITNESS'S CAN OFFER OPINION
TESTIMONY. TEX. R. OF EVID. 701 DEALS WITH THE [TRA]DITIONAL WITNESS, ONE WHO "WITNESSED" OR PARTICIPATED IN THE EVENTS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF TESTI
MONY WHILE RULE 702 ALLOWS FOR A WITNESS WHO IS NOT TESTIFYING BASED ON
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.. [TRE 701, 702].
NEITHER. "BEATTY NOR WILKERSON" WERE DESIGNATED BY THE STATE AS EXPERT
WITNESSES. CR 29. THE FIELDS OF EXPERTISE DESIGNATED'BY THE STATE DID NOT
ENCOMPASS "BEATTY" AND "WILKERSON'S" OPINION TESTIMONY OR THEIR ALLEGED FIELD
OF EXPERTISE, [IF] ANY. CR '29.
THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY THAT "BEATTY" HAD ..EVER [INDEPENDENTLY. .INVESTI GATED AN ASSUALT FAMILY CASE BEFORE, ONLY THAT HE HAD (ONCE) "OBSERVED A FIELD OFFICER DO AN ASSUALT FAMILY VIOLENCE CASE [.]" 3 RR 11. THE NIGHT OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSE, "BEATTY" WAS STILL BEING TRAINED AND SUPERVISED BY
"WILKERSON", "BEATTY'S" FIELD TRAINING OFFICER. 3 RR 12. "BEATTY" HAD ONLY
SOME "CLASSROOM ORIENTATION" AT THE POLICE ACADEMY. 3 RR .10. BOTH DEPUTY'S
COMBINED PATROL EXPERIENCE. MERELY ADDED UP TO. ONE (1) YEAR. 3 RR 9.
IN DIXON v. STATE, 244 S.W.3d 472, 479 (TEX.APP.-H0UST0N[14tHDIST..]- 2007, PET. REF'D); WILLIAMS v. STATE, 826 S.W.2d 783, 785 (TEX.APP.1992) AND DAVIS v. STATE, 313 S.W.3d 317, 350 (TEX.CRIM.APP.2010) - THE LAW ENFORCE MENT OFFICERS HAD YEARS OF EXPERIENCES, HAD PERSONALLY INVESTIGATED NUMEROUS
CRIMES DIRECTLY RELATED, TO, THE SUBJECT OF THEIR EXPERT TESTIMONY,.. AND. HAD
RECEIVED SPECIALIZED TRAINING [BE]YOND THEIR BASIC POLICE ACADEMY INSTRUCTION.
HERE IN THE INSTANT NOT SO!
BOTH "BEATTY" AND "WILKERSON" DID NOT,HAVE [PERSONAL] KNOWLEDGE OF. THE FACTS OR OF APPELLANT'S MENTAL STATE..SEE "SALDANA", 2011 TEX.APP.IEKIS1709.
LIKE "SALDANA" .- HERE "BEATTYS" OPINION, WHILE ALLEGEDLY BASED ON PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE >>COULD<< ONLY HAVE BEEN REACHED BASED ON HEARSAY STATEMENTS FROM
THE STATES WITNESSES. ("AGNES" AND "TIMS").
HERE ONLY FOUR (4) WITNESS'S TESTIFIED, HOWEVER, IT WAS DEPUTY "WILKER SON" AND DEPUTY "BEATTY", TESTIMONY, IN THEIR OPINION ... APPELLANT WAS GUILTY - AND DID NOT ACT IN SELF-DEFENSE.
NOTE: NEITHER DEPUTY WAS PRESENT AT THE SCENE AT THE TIME OF THE
OFFENSE. BOTH "TIMS" AND "AGNES" WERE PRESENT - AND NEITHER TESTIFIED THAT
APPELLANT WAS .GUILTY OF ASSAULT. IN PARTICULAR, "AGNES" TESTIFIED