Source: http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/14thCoA-2008-In-Interest-of-KY-by-Yates-termination-home-state-admission-of-autopsy-photos.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:02:13+00:00

Document:
stepdaughter, whom he was convicted of murdering. We affirm.
A.F. died in December of 2003, at the age of twelve. B.F. testified that A.F. had not been feeling well that day.
damaged, she had multiple layers of scarring on her buttocks, and she was bruised literally from head to toe.
the home. They were placed with a foster family, with whom they have lived since and who want to adopt them.
In his second issue, for the first time on appeal, appellant challenges the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction.
standard of review. Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004); Salaymeh v.
Dist.] Aug. 26, 2008, no pet. h.). Subject matter jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal.
Salaymeh, 2008 WL 4335090, at *2.
and the child is absent from Texas but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in Texas. Tex.
740 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]).
their house and possessions in Texas and lived in Texas, with frequent visits to Oklahoma, until May 2006.
interstate visits by child do not defeat home state jurisdiction); In re Brown, 203 S.W.3d 888, 892B93 (Tex. App.
and the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction. We overrule appellant's second issue.
he contends extends until the appellate mandate is issued.
court from reviewing complaints made regarding the trial court's temporary orders. See Tanguy v. Laux, 259 S.
99 S.W.3d at 690. Accordingly, we overrule appellant's third issue.
order is not rendered within this time frame, the suit must be dismissed without prejudice. Id. §263.401(a), (c).
other courts have recognized that a second suit can be initiated if new facts exist").
parental rights in certain circumstances involving parent's conviction of offense).
based on subsequent suit, stating that new facts alleged in subsequent suit arose after the first suit was filed).
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We will not overturn such a decision if it falls within the zone of reasonable agreement.
Rayford v. State, 125 S.W.3d 521, 529 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
photographs are admissible if oral testimony as to the matters depicted in the photographs is also admissible.
show the extent of A.F.'s injuries because the medical examiner's testimony had already established this.
determining that the autopsy photographs are relevant.
whether the body is clothed. Id.
value of the photograph is small and its inflammatory potential great.").
photograph may be disturbing, that alone does not render it inadmissible. See In re C.J.F. 134 S.W.3d at 356.
sensitivity, after viewing them, would encounter difficulty in rationally deciding the critical issues of the case").
suffered was not substantially outweighed by any risk of unfairly prejudicing the jury. See In re C.J.F., 134 S.W.
3d at 356B57; see also Rayford, 125 S.W.3d at 529B30; Salazar, 38 S.W.3d at 151-53.
For these reasons, we overrule appellant's fourth issue.
Having overruled of appellant's issues, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Judgment rendered and Opinion filed November 6, 2008.
 See Yost v. State, 222 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. dism'd).
had been taken from that final judgment. See, e.g., Robertson v. Ranger Ins. Co., 689 S.W.2d 209, 210 (Tex.
appeal is pending and consequently are not on point.
and third issues. Because these issues go to subject matter jurisdiction, we must nevertheless consider them.
4335090, at *2 (stating that subject matter jurisdiction can be raised for the first time on appeal).

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 §263
 v. 
 v. 
 v.