Court Opinion

ID: 9701281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:13:50.47849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:22.052623
License: Public Domain

REX D. DAVIS, Chief Justice,
concurring on petition for discretionary review.
I agree with Justice Vance that Keeter’s motion for new trial and supporting affidavit adequately preserved his Brady issue for appellate review. Because the issue was adequately preserved, the discussion regarding whether Brady violations must be preserved under Marin is unnecessary, and I respectfully decline to join it. That aside, I otherwise concur with the lead opinion.
A defendant preserves an issue for appellate review by making “a timely request, objection or motion” which sufficiently apprises the trial court of the ruling sought. Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). Keeter’s motion for new trial and supporting affidavit informed the court that the complainant’s stepmother, who provided “outcry” testimony, believes that Keeter did not commit the offense. The State did not disclose this fact to Keeter.
To be timely, the defendant must make his objection or request “at the first opportunity or as soon as the basis of the objection becomes apparent.” Wilson v. State, 44 S.W.3d 602, 606 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd) (citing Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 355 (Tex.Crim.App.1995)); accord Wilson v. State, 7 S.W.3d 136, 146 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). Thus, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the defendant’s request for a continuance in Wilson to investigate certain Brady evidence was untimely because the State disclosed the evidence in question five days before testimony began and the defense did not request a continuance until after both sides had *150rested their cases in chief. 7 S.W.3d at 146.
Keeter’s motion for new trial and supporting affidavit adequately called the Brady issue to the trial court’s attention. He raised the issue as soon as he became aware of it. Therefore, I concur.