Court Opinion

ID: 9963795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 12:13:39.580064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:59.972310
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                 No. 10-23-00045-CV

                  IN THE MATTER OF K.H.R., A JUVENILE

                           From the 272nd District Court
                               Brazos County, Texas
                              Trial Court No. 211-J-22

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

       K.H.R. appeals from a judgment modifying his juvenile probation and committing

him to the Texas Juvenile Justice Division for an indeterminate sentence not to exceed his

19th birthday. See TEX. FAM. CODE §54.05. K.H.R. complains that the trial court erred by

admitting an exhibit relating to his unsuccessful discharge from a placement after being

placed on probation because the exhibit was improperly authenticated, contained

hearsay, and violated his right to confrontation and that the error was further

compounded by the testimony of a witness as to the exhibit's contents. Because we find

no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

       On August 24, 2022, K.H.R. was found to have engaged in delinquent conduct and
was placed at a facility in Hays County. On September 7, 2022, K.H.R. was unsuccessfully

discharged from the facility. The State filed a petition to modify the terms of his

supervision alleging that he had failed to attend individual counseling on specific dates,

failed to attend group counseling on specific dates, and failed to attend school on specific

dates. K.H.R. pled not true to the allegations.

        At the modification hearing, the State offered the discharge summary from the

Hays County facility into evidence with the Brazos County probation officer as the

sponsoring witness.          K.H.R. objected to the summary on the basis of improper

authentication, hearsay, and the violation of his right to confrontation. The trial court

overruled the objection and admitted the document. The following exchange took place

when the State began to question the witness about the specific violations after the

document was admitted into evidence:

        STATE:           Now, [Witness], do you have a discharge summary in front of
                         you?

        WITNESS:         Yes, ma'am, I do.

        STATE:           If we were to look through that discharge summary, they
                         actually, at Hays County, developed a target treatment plan
                         for [K.H.R.], correct?

        WITNESS:         That is correct.

        STATE:           And what was their targets [sic]?

        WITNESS:         To work on behavior modification, improve decision-making
                         skills, improving anger management, also to develop
                         prosocial skills, then succeed in educational goals.
In the Matter of K.H.R., a Juvenile                                                    Page 2
        STATE:           Were they able to do any of that?

        WITNESS:         No, ma'am.

        STATE:           Why is that?

        WITNESS:         Because as of the second day of [K.H.R.] being at the
                         placement facility, he refused to come out of his cell,
                         therefore, refusing to program.

        STATE:           What does that mean when they say he's refusing to program?

        WITNESS:         When he is refusing to program, he is basically not
                         participating in any educational—anything that has to do
                         with education, any individual counseling, even group
                         sessions. I do believe that he was also refusing to visit with
                         his caseworker and counselor.

        STATE:           And is it noted as part of his discharge summary that on
                         occasion he may have been disrespectful to counselors who
                         were seeking to provide treatment to him?

        WITNESS:         Yes, ma'am.

        STATE:           And is it noted certain dates in which he was refusing both
                         counseling, schooling, treatment?

        WITNESS:         Yes, ma'am.

        STATE:           Okay. And if we're going to track those dates, I'm going to ask
                         you to look over to page 2. And did they specify that there
                         were specific individual counseling sessions that he failed to
                         participate in?

        WITNESS:         Yes, ma'am.

        STATE:           What were the dates of those?

        WITNESS:         For individual counseling we have August 25th of 2022,
In the Matter of K.H.R., a Juvenile                                                        Page 3
                         August 26, August 31st, September 6. Group counseling of
                         '22, we have August 25th, August 26—

        THE COURT: Hold on. You have to slow down. She's typing everything
                  we're saying too, everything everyone says. So you were in
                  group counseling.

        WITNESS:         Yes, sir. August 25th, August 26th, August 29th, August 30th,
                         August 31st, September 1st, September 2nd, September 6.

        STATE:           And was schooling also a part of what [K.H.R.] was supposed
                         to participate in?

        WITNESS:         Yes.

        COUNSEL FOR K.H.R.: And, Judge, I apologize, but I just want to make it
                 very clear that I am objecting to each and every question that
                 calls for hearsay. I don't think it's admissible in this phase. I
                 think it is admissible in the disposition phase in this hearing.
                 But I am objecting to each and every question that calls for
                 and is answered by hearsay.

        THE COURT: Okay.

        COUNSEL FOR K.H.R.: I don't know if you would be willing to grant me
                 a running objection, if you wish to overrule my objection, or
                 if I need to object to every question.

        THE COURT: Yeah, I'll grant a running objection to any—you are saying
                  based on this discharge summary?

        COUNSEL FOR K.H.R.: Anything that I believe within in this phase of this
                 hearing is hearsay, and I believe that [Witness] testifying as to
                 that document's contents—I believe that's hearsay. So I'm just
                 going to object to all of it.

        THE COURT: Okay. I'll grant your running objection.

        In his sole issue, K.H.R. argues that the trial court erred by admitting the exhibit

In the Matter of K.H.R., a Juvenile                                                      Page 4
because it was not properly authenticated, contained hearsay, and violated his U.S.

Constitutional right to confrontation and that allowing the witness to testify about the

contents of the exhibit "compounded" the error. These complaints are the same that were

made during the modification hearing at the time that the trial court admitted the exhibit.

K.H.R. did not request a running objection to the testimony based on the exhibit at the

time it was admitted.

        In order to preserve error, a party generally must continue to object each time the

objectionable evidence is offered. See In re Y.R.S., No. 10-19-00065-CV, 2019 WL 4072040,

2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 7854 at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 28, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(citing Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)). Additionally, even if we

assume without deciding that the admission of the document was erroneous, K.H.R. was

not harmed by the admission of this evidence. This is because the testimony as to the

same allegations contained in the exhibit as to the failure to attend individual and group

counseling sessions over a period of days was admitted after the exhibit was admitted

but prior to K.H.R.'s second hearsay objection and request for a running objection to the

testimony. The request for the running objection was not timely as to the witness's

testimony regarding K.H.R.'s failure to attend individual and group counseling on the

specified dates. A trial court's erroneous admission of evidence will not require reversal

when, as in this case, other such evidence was received without objection, either before

or after the complained-of ruling. See In re Y.R.S., 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 7854 at *6 (citing

In the Matter of K.H.R., a Juvenile                                                   Page 5
Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274, 302 n.29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Lane v State, 151 S.W.3d

188, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

        Also, after the objection to the admission of the exhibit, K.H.R. did not object again

to any part of the subsequent testimony on the basis of improper authentication or

confrontation after the document was admitted into evidence and therefore, the

complaint to the testimony on those grounds was not preserved by the running objection

even if it had been timely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). We overrule K.H.R.'s sole issue.

CONCLUSION

        Having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                  TOM GRAY
                                                  Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed April 25, 2024
[CV06]

In the Matter of K.H.R., a Juvenile                                                     Page 6