Court Opinion

ID: 2891386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-07 21:41:40.639643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:42.448675
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-04-0069-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

DECEMBER 7, 2005

______________________________

THOMAS H. YOUNG, 

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 140
TH
 DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2003-404,581; HON. JIM B. DARNELL, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

Thomas H. Young appeals his convictions for possessing with intent to deliver and manufacturing a controlled substance (namely methamphetamine).   His three issues concern the admission of evidence of an extraneous offense.  We overrule the issues and affirm the judgment for the following reason.

The evidence in question involved discussion by an officer of an incident occurring after the offense for which appellant was tried.  Furthermore, appellant objected to the testimony under Texas Rules of Evidence 401, 403 and 404.  The objections were overruled, and the testimony continued.  After the parties completed their examination of this particular officer, another was called by the State.  This officer also testified about the same incident but without objection from the appellant.  Moreover, the appellant had not requested or obtained a running objection when the incident was discussed by the first officer.  Given these circumstances, the objection was waived.  
Leday v. State, 
983 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).  

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Brian Quinn

          Chief Justice 	

Do not publish.