Source: https://texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=articles&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=44038
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:36:49+00:00

Document:
The top 10 ways lawyers unwittingly waive error for appeal.
As an appellate attorney, nothing is more frustrating than reviewing a reporter’s record and finding an error that might entitle your client to relief that has not been preserved for appeal. Appellate courts are exceptionally strict about preservation of error, and while most attorneys are familiar with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 33.1, which requires a timely objection, motion, or request to preserve error for appeal, there are a number of other requirements for preserving appeal that must be observed. Listed below are the top 10 ways lawyers routinely and unwittingly waive error by failing to abide by those requirements. They apply primarily to criminal cases but have general applicability to all areas of practice. Along with the rules, I have included some practice tips I have learned along the way.
Practice Tip: To be on the safe side, when you make an objection at trial, list every rule of evidence, legal principle, or constitutional basis for your challenge. For example, if you are objecting that a piece of evidence is illegally seized, object on the basis of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.23; Article 1, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That way, all of the bases are covered for the appeal.
3) The attorney fails to obtain a ruling on his or her objection. It is well settled that as a prerequisite to presenting a point of error for appellate review, the record must show that the complaint in question was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion, and the trial court ruled on the request, objection, or motion.6 Therefore, you must always obtain a ruling.
4) The attorney fails to submit a written or oral proposed jury instruction. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 36.14 requires that a proposed jury instruction be submitted in writing or dictated into the record to preserve a challenge on appeal that the instruction was not included in the court’s charge. Likewise, in the civil context, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 278 imposes the same requirement.
Practice Tip: A trusted colleague taught me to prepare my own jury charge before each trial. This is extremely helpful in identifying any special issues that may come up in your case. Also, during the charge conference, you can submit your own proposed charge and preserve any requested instructions at the same time. However, if you choose not to prepare your own charge, be sure to dictate your requested instruction into the record at the charge conference.
Practice Tip: We’ve all been there. We file our motions and the trial court doesn’t want to sign them because they know we are going to appeal their ruling. You must continue to urge the trial court to sign your proposed order or deny your request in writing to ensure your challenge will be preserved on appeal. If the trial court absolutely will not put its ruling in writing, make sure that an oral ruling is on the record and that your request that the ruling be in writing was made.
Practice Tip: Even if I am the losing party, I always file my own proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as a way of giving the court another chance to rule in my favor and to signpost how I plan to challenge the court’s ruling on appeal in hopes the court will reverse its ruling.
Practice Tip: Jury selection is often hectic and confusing. When possible, have another attorney sit with you during jury selection to keep track of your challenges for cause, peremptories, etc., and keep the above list handy so you can check off the requirements as you go. Also, be sure to identify the objectionable juror who sat on the jury by name or juror number and state why they were objectionable.
Practice Tip: If previously undisclosed evidence or a witness comes to light just before or during trial, object to its admission and ask for a continuance to investigate the evidence or witness’ proposed testimony (especially if it’s an expert witness). It is also helpful to put on the record how your client has been prejudiced by the late disclosure of the evidence or witness since that is an integral part of the analysis on appeal.
9) The attorney fails to make an offer of proof. In order to preserve a claim on appeal that evidence was improperly excluded, you must make an offer of proof of what the evidence or testimony would have been.15 This is because the appellate court cannot review whether the evidence should not have been excluded if it does not know what, specifically, it was.
Practice Tip: If the evidence excluded is testimony, you can either question the witness or proffer what the testimony would have been. You can do this with just the court reporter. The judge does not have to be present. If the evidence is a document, a video, etc., you can mark the evidence as a record exhibit and tender it to the court reporter to make sure it gets up to the Court of Appeals.
1. Ethington v. State of Texas, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Hudson v. State of Texas, 675 S.W.2d 507, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
3. Martinez v. State of Texas, 98 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
4. Coffey v. State of Texas, 796 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).
6. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Tucker v. State of Texas, 990 S.W.2d 261, 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
7. State of Texas v. Boyd, 202 S.W.3d 393 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006).
8. See, e.g., Chamberlain v. State, 05-13-01213-CR, 2015 WL3413543 (Tex. App.—Dallas, delivered May 27, 2015).
9. Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1); In re Cullar, 320 S.W. 3d 560 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010).
10. State of Texas v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
12. Comeaux v. State of Texas, 445 S.W.3d 745, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
13. Barnes v. State of Texas, 876 S.W.2d 316, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).
14. Williams v. State of Texas, 995 S.W.2d 754 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999).
15. Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2), (b).
16. State of Texas v. Lohse, 881 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994); Buccarelli v. State of Texas, 793 S.W.2d 289, 290 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990).
17. Guevara v. State, 985 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999).
is a solo practice appellate and trial attorney who is certified in criminal law and criminal appellate law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. She is also a former prosecutor and former staff attorney at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.