Court Opinion

ID: 9555625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-14 16:16:16.969545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:39:02.973457
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued August 8, 2023

                                     In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                    For The

                         First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                             NO. 01-22-00284-CR
                           ———————————
                   IVAN BURGOS SANTIAGO, Appellant
                                       V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 264th District Court
                            Bell County, Texas
                        Trial Court Case No. 82101

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury found appellant Ivan Burgos Santiago guilty of the offense of

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.1 The trial court assessed his punishment

1
      See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.02(a)(2).
at eight years’ confinement.2 In two issues on appeal, Santiago argues that (1) the

trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to introduce police body

camera footage during rebuttal because it was cumulative and harmed Santiago by

its admission, and (2) the State injected “new harmful facts” during closing

argument.

      We affirm.

                                    Background

      The complainant, Jerry Davis, stopped at a convenience store and observed

Santiago’s vehicle blocking “an old man trying to back out.” Davis told Santiago

to move his car. According to Davis, Santiago “[s]tarted talking crazy” and

“cussing.” Davis was offended by the things Santiago was saying, so Davis told

Santiago he was “not the one to mess with” and walked on his way. As Davis

continued to walk down the street, Santiago followed in his vehicle, pulled up next

to Davis, and used a racial slur. Santiago got out of his vehicle, Davis saw that he

had “a knife.”3 Davis and Santiago fought, and Davis was cut on his hands and

neck. Davis was concerned with protecting himself because he was worried he

would be killed.
2
      Pursuant to its docket equalization authority, the Supreme Court of Texas
      transferred this appeal to this Court from the Third Court of Appeals. See TEX.
      GOV’T CODE § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of cases).
3
      There were varying descriptions of this weapon. Davis called it a knife, but
      another witness called it a box cutter. The only weapon recovered at the scene was
      a box cutter that Santiago confirmed belonged to him.
                                           2
      Davis testified that another man was passing by and helped him subdue

Santiago. Davis testified that, “while [he] was holding [Santiago’s] hand keeping

the knife from getting out, [Santiago] kept twisting, twisting, twisting.” Davis “told

him to stop, your arm is going to break and he just kept twisting and it broke.”

When the police arrived, they stopped fighting.

      Johnny Wilson was the bystander who helped Davis subdue Santiago. He

testified that he witnessed Santiago stop his vehicle in the middle of the road.

Wilson saw that Santiago had a box cutter in his hand and was arguing with Davis.

Wilson testified that he saw Santiago cut Davis a couple of times before Davis

“was able to grab [Santiago’s] hand and bring him down.” When Wilson saw this,

he got out of his vehicle and ran up to help Davis. Wilson told Santiago to let go of

the blade, but Santiago “wouldn’t let it go” and “was trying to get that blade out so

he could throw some more swings and try to cut people.”

      Officer T. Lundt responded to 9-1-1 calls reporting a fight with a weapon.

When he arrived at the scene, “[t]here was a lot of chaos going on.” He saw that

there were a lot of bystanders, two men sitting down and “covered in blood,” a

vehicle stopped in the middle of the road, and “someone holding a small knife.” He

detained and cuffed both Santiago and Davis to secure the scene until police could

determine what had happened. Officer Lundt also “secured the weapon that was on

                                          3
the ground,” describing it as “a small box cutter like knife.” Santiago was

eventually charged with the aggravated assault of Davis.

      Santiago testified on his own behalf. He testified that after Davis told him to

move his car, he decided to drive home to get some tools. He denied calling Davis

any names. He testified that Davis crossed into the street in front of his vehicle,

forcing him to stop in the middle of the street. Santiago testified that, when he got

out of his car, Davis had a knife in his hand that Davis used to attack him. When

they fell to the ground during the fight, Davis dropped the knife and Santiago

picked it up. Santiago testified that he received a cut and a broken arm during the

altercation.

      Santiago identified the box cutter that was collected from the scene as

belonging to him. When asked how the box cutter ended up on the sidewalk at the

scene of the assault, he testified, “I suppose that when we were fighting it fell from

my side pocket where I keep it and somebody must have grabbed it.” Santiago

testified that the assault happened with a knife that Davis had in his hand. Santiago

did not know what happened to that knife. When the State pointed out that no other

witness mentioned seeing Davis with a knife, Santiago disagreed. He testified that

Davis or Wilson “did something with it.”

      On rebuttal, Officer J. Leach testified that he also responded to the call about

Santiago’s altercation. When he arrived, he observed Santiago and Davis

                                           4
“fighting” and “struggling” with each other. They quickly separated, and Officer

Leach noticed that both men had injuries. Officer Leach believed that Santiago’s

arm was already broken when the fight stopped, and he also noted in his report that

Santiago wanted to press charges against Davis for assaulting him with a knife.

      The State sought to admit a 30-minute recording from Officer Leach’s body

camera depicting the scene after the police arrived. Santiago objected that the

video was “improper rebuttal to the defense case,” which consisted of Santiago’s

testimony. The State argued that Santiago made statements during his testimony

about what had happened, where certain people were located, the number of

weapons involved and other matters that created a conflict between his testimony

and that of other witnesses. The State argued that it “would be helpful to the jury to

understand what happened at that moment shortly after [the fight] occurred.” The

trial court overruled the objection and granted Santiago a running objection. The

State played the video to the jury, accompanied by Officer Leach’s testimony

explaining portions of the footage. The video showed the end of the fight between

Santiago and Davis, the collection of evidence, and statements made by Santiago

and Davis to Officer Leach, among other things.

      During closing argument, the State was summarizing the efforts police took

during the investigation of the scene. The following exchange occurred:

      [State]:     These officers did their job, they did a good job. It’s just
                   very obvious what happened. They talked to witnesses on
                                          5
                   the scene that told them what happened. They found this
                   box cutter. Right there. Right there where the guys were.

      [Court]:     Time to wrap up. . . .

      [State]:     Thank you, your Honor. This box cutter which still to
                   this day has the victim’s blood on it.

      [Santiago]: Objection, Your Honor. There’s no—

      [Court]:     Ladies and gentlemen, the lawyer comments are not
                   evidence. You heard the evidence from the witness stand.
                   You’ll remember the evidence.

      [State]:     Thank you. It was all there all contained in this one
                   location. The officers investigated. They found out what
                   happened, and now everyone has told you. . . .

The State concluded its closing argument, and the trial court sent the jury to

deliberate. Santiago made no further objections or requests regarding the State’s

argument.

      The jury found Santiago guilty of aggravated assault, and it made an

affirmative finding that he used a deadly weapon. The trial court assessed

Santiago’s punishment at eight years’ confinement. This appeal followed.

                      Admission of Body Camera Footage

      In his first issue, Santiago argues that the trial court abused its discretion in

allowing the State to present the video from Officer Leach’s body camera in

rebuttal to Santiago’s testimony.

                                            6
A.    Standard of Review

      We review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse

of discretion. Rhomer v. State, 569 S.W.3d 664, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019). We

will not reverse a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence, and there is

no abuse of discretion, unless that decision lies outside the zone of reasonable

disagreement. Beham v. State, 559 S.W.3d 474, 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).

      For a complaint to be properly preserved for appellate review, a party must

present a specific, timely objection to the trial court that articulates and makes the

trial court aware of the specific grounds for the ruling that the complaining party

seeks. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); TEX. R. EVID. 103(a); Burg v. State, 592

S.W.3d 444, 448–49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). Further, the complaint raised on

appeal must correspond to and comport with the objection made at trial. See

Hallmark v. State, 541 S.W.3d 167, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); Lovill v. State,

319 S.W.3d 687, 691–92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (noting that issue is not

preserved “if the legal basis of the complaint raised on appeal varies from the

complaint made at trial”).

B.    Analysis

      Santiago objected at trial to the admission of the video from Officer Leach’s

body camera on the ground that it was not proper rebuttal evidence. Now on

appeal, he argues that the evidence “was cumulative and could have been presented

                                          7
during the State’s case-in-chief,” citing to Rules of Evidence 401 through 403. He

argues that the video was duplicative and a needless presentation of cumulative

evidence. Because his objection on appeal does not comport with his objection at

trial, he has not preserved this complaint for review on appeal. See Hallmark, 541

S.W.3d at 171; see also, e.g., Lopez v. State, 200 S.W.3d 246, 251 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (holding that “a specific Rule 403 objection

must be raised to preserve error” because Rule 403 complaint is not implicitly

contained in general objection to relevancy or objection under some other rule of

evidence).

      To the extent that Santiago is attempting to reassert his objection at trial that

the video of body camera footage was not proper rebuttal evidence and, thus, the

trial court erred in overruling his objection and admitting the video, we disagree.

Santiago argues that “the State could have called Leach to testify in its case-in-

chief” but instead, the State “waited until after [Santiago] testified to call Leach

and introduce duplicative and cumulative evidence which had already been

presented, presumably so the last witness the jury would hear from was a State’s

witness.”

      In general, “[t]he prosecution is entitled on rebuttal to present any evidence

that tends to refute the defensive theory of the accused and the evidence introduced

in support of it.” Laws v. State, 549 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); see

                                          8
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 36.01(a) (setting order of proceeding in trial, including

that “[r]ebutting testimony may be offered on the part of each party” following

defendant’s presentation of evidence); id. art. 36.02 (“The court shall allow

testimony to be introduced at any time before the argument of a cause is

concluded, if it appears that it is necessary to a due administration of justice.”);

Lackey v. State, 638 S.W.2d 439, 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (en banc) (“This

Court has often held that [Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 36.02] and its

predecessors mean that testimony may be introduced in the rebuttal portion of a

trial whether it specifically rebuts other testimony or not.”).

      Santiago’s testimony challenged factual details set out by the State’s

witnesses. Santiago testified that Davis instigated the fight, that Davis had a knife

of his own, that Davis or Wilson “did something” with Davis’s knife immediately

following the fight, and that his own box cutter must have fallen from his pocket

during the fight. On rebuttal, the State sought to admit the body camera footage to

show the immediate aftermath of the altercation and the investigation and

collection of evidence by police. We cannot say that the trial court abused its

discretion in determining that this evidence was generally admissible as rebuttal

evidence. See Laws, 549 S.W.2d at 741; Lackey, 638 S.W.2d at 457.

      We overrule Santiago’s first issue.

                                            9
                        Statement During Closing Argument

       In his second issue, Santiago argues that the State “injected new, harmful

facts during jury argument that were not supported by the record.”

A.     Standard of Review

       “The purpose of closing argument is to facilitate the jury in properly

analyzing the evidence presented at trial so that it may ‘arrive at a just and

reasonable conclusion based on the evidence alone, and not on any fact not

admitted in evidence.’” Milton v. State, 572 S.W.3d 234, 239 (Tex. Crim. App.

2019) (quoting Campbell v. State, 610 S.W.2d 754, 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)

(panel op.)). “[T]he bounds of proper closing argument are left to the sound

discretion of the trial court.” Id. at 240.

       As stated above, for a complaint to be properly preserved for appellate

review, a party must present a specific, timely objection to the trial court that

articulates and makes the trial court aware of the specific grounds for the ruling

that the complaining party seeks. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); TEX. R. EVID.

103(a); Burg, 592 S.W.3d at 448–49. A defendant’s failure to pursue an adverse

ruling on his objection to a jury argument forfeits his right to complain about the

argument on appeal. Hernandez v. State, 538 S.W.3d 619, 622–23 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2018) (citing Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)).

                                              10
B.    Analysis.

      During closing argument, the State commented that Davis’s blood was “still

to this day” on Santiago’s box cutter. Santiago’s counsel objected, but before he

could state the specific grounds of the objection, the trial court stated, “Ladies and

gentlemen, the lawyer comments are not evidence. You heard the evidence from

the witness stand. You’ll remember the evidence.” Santiago did not make any

further objections or requests regarding the State’s argument that the box cutter

still had Davis’s blood on it.

      Thus, Santiago failed to pursue his objection to an adverse ruling and,

therefore, forfeits his right to complain on appeal about the argument. See id. at

622 (holding that defendant “must object and pursue his objection to an adverse

ruling” or he “forfeits his right to complain on appeal about the argument”).

Assuming without deciding that the State’s comment was improper,4 the trial court

here essentially instructed the jury to disregard the lawyer’s comments and

consider only the evidence that was admitted at trial. “In order to claim on appeal

that an instruction to disregard was inadequate to cure erroneous jury argument, the

defendant must object and pursue his objection to an adverse ruling.” Id.; see also

4
      When Officer Lundt testified about collecting the box cutter as evidence, he
      testified that the blade was open, he observed that both men were bleeding and
      there were cuts to Davis’s neck and arm, and the blade “appear[ed] to have a
      substance on it that look[ed] like blood.” The State also introduced photographs of
      the box cutter as Officer Lundt described it.
                                          11
Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274, 303 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (even assuming

prosecutor’s argument was so egregious that instruction to disregard would be

ineffectual, defendant “should have moved for a mistrial to preserve this error”).

Santiago failed to pursue his objection to an adverse ruling or to move for mistrial,

so he has forfeited review of this issue.

      We overrule Santiago’s second issue.

                                     Conclusion

      We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                 Richard Hightower
                                                 Justice

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

                                            12