Opinion ID: 4044873
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: admissibility of opinion testimony

Text: refusal to rule. Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a)(2); Pena v. State, 353  In his second point, Hodges argues that the trial court S.W.3d 797, 807 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). A reviewing court abused its discretion by allowing the State to present, in its should not address the merits of an issue that has not been case on rebuttal, opinion evidence concerning Mary's good preserved for appeal. Wilson v. State, 311 S.W.3d 452, 473 character for truthfulness when her character for truthfulness (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (op. on reh'g); Sample, 405 S.W.3d at had not been attacked. Hodges's complaint concerns the 300. following testimony of Jessie, one of the adult leaders at the church retreat: Here, defense counsel objected to relevancy, “capab[ility] or competen[cy] to answer the question,” and nonresponsive, Q. What is your opinion of [Mary]'s character for and he obtained a ruling on only his nonresponsive objection. truthfulness? Defense counsel did not preserve his rule 608 argument for appeal. See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Landers, 402 S.W.3d [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection, Your Honor. That's at 254; Sample, 405 S.W.3d at 300; see also Tex.R. Evid. not—that's not relevant, or she's not capable or competent 608(a) (setting forth requirements for admission of character to answer that question. Not a proper question. evidence). We overrule Hodges's second point. THE COURT: I think there may be a preliminary question in front of that. You may rephrase at this point if you would like to. V. ADMISSIBILITY OF HEARSAY TESTIMONY Q. (BY [THE STATE] ) In your experiences with [Mary], In his third point, Hodges argues that the trial court abused have you formed an opinion as to her character for its discretion by admitting Sally's testimony about certain truthfulness? statements made by Mary in violation of the hearsay rule. Specifically, he complains of Sally's testimony that she once A. Yes. saw Mary “tugging her shirt down to show her cleavage and part of her breasts because that's what Daddy said he liked.” Q. And is it good or bad? After the trial court overruled defense counsel's hearsay and A. I would say she's been truthful with me. nonresponsive objections, Sally explained that Mary had said she showed her cleavage [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. That's nonresponsive, Your Honor. because that's what Daddy liked and that made Daddy happy and turned THE COURT: Just listen carefully. Just respond to the Daddy on, because he pointed out question. somebody at Golden Corral that had on a low-cut shirt and was showing off THE WITNESS: Sorry. her breasts, and that [Mary] wanted to Q. (BY [THE STATE] ) So it's a good one? make Daddy happy and please Daddy. And that's what made Daddy happy
To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have “ ‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in motion that states the specific grounds for the desired ruling evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Tex.R. if they are not apparent from the context of the request, Evid. 801(d). The “hearsay rule” excludes the admission of objection, or motion. Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Landers v. hearsay evidence, but the rules of evidence also provide that © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 Hodges v. State, Not Reported in S.W.3d (2015) many types of hearsay evidence are not excluded by the Here, we have detailed the evidence presented at trial, hearsay rule. See Tex.R. Evid. 802, 803, 804. including Mary's testimony about how Hodges fondled her on many occasions, French kissed her, demonstrated  In this case, we need not decide whether the complained- masturbation to her, and watched her change clothes. of statements constitute inadmissible hearsay because, even Hodges vigorously cross-examined Mary and Sally about the assuming that they were, any error in their admission allegations and presented evidence in an attempt to contradict was harmless. Error in the admission of hearsay evidence Mary's testimony, such as evidence that her door did not have is subject to harmless error analysis under rule 44.2(b). a lock and that her shower had an opaque shower curtain. Tex.R.App. P. 44.2(b); see Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d The jury heard Hodges's testimony denying or explaining 249, 259 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (op. on reh'g), cert. denied, the allegations against him, including his explanation of 526 U.S. 1070 (1999); Moon v. State, 44 S.W.3d 589, 594 the Golden Corral incident. Hodges said that Mary had (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd). A substantial right asked what “sexy” meant and he had pointed out a woman is affected when the error had a substantial and injurious at Golden Corral who was wearing a low-cut blouse and effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. King said that the woman was “trying to be sexy.” The State v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (citing did not mention the Golden Corral incident during closing Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. argument, instead emphasizing Mary's testimony, Hodges's 1239, 1253 (1946)). Conversely, an error does not affect a incriminating statements to the detective, and Hodges's substantial right if we have “fair assurance that the error did explanation of the August 1, 2009 incident. We conclude that, not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” Solomon v. in the context of the entire case against Hodges, any error in State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Johnson v. the admission of Sally's testimony set forth above did not have State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). a substantial or injurious effect on the jury's verdict and did not affect Hodges's substantial rights. See King, 953 S.W.2d In making this determination, we review the record as a at 271. Thus, we disregard the alleged error. See Tex.R.App. whole, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted P. 44.2(b). We overrule Hodges's third point. for the jury's consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, and the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case. Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, VI. CONCLUSION 355 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). We may also consider the jury instructions, the State's theory and any defensive theories, Having overruled Hodges's three points, we affirm the trial whether the State emphasized the error, closing arguments, court's judgment. and even voir dire, if applicable. Id. at 355–56. End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7