Court Opinion

ID: 2889555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-07 20:21:07.358777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:08.232547
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-00-0349-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

JANUARY 8, 2003

______________________________

KEVIN WAYNE GILBERT, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 240TH DISTRICT COURT OF FORT BEND COUNTY;

NO. 32179; HONORABLE OGDEN BASS, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.
(footnote: -6)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(footnote: 1)
	Following a plea of not guilty, appellant was convicted by a jury of indecency with a child and punishment was assessed at five years confinement and a $3000 fine, suspended for ten years.  By a sole issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to bar the testimony of Reverend Ronnie Linden.  Based upon the rationale expressed herein, we affirm.

We hold that appellant did not preserve his complaint for appellate review.  It is well settled that the denial of a motion in limine is not sufficient to preserve error for review, but rather there must be a proper objection to the proffered evidence.  McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 618 (Tex.Cr.App. 1997), 
cert. denied
, 522 U.S. 844, 118 S.Ct. 125, 139 L.Ed.2d 75 (1997), citing Basham v. State, 608 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980).  During Linden’s direct testimony no objections were made, and upon cross-examination the only objection lodged by defense counsel was that the witness’s answer was nonresponsive.  Appellant’s sole issue is overruled.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

FOOTNOTES
-6:John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.

1:Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.