Court Opinion

ID: 2899940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-09 00:20:22.910627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:59.781148
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-08-0339-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JANUARY 13, 2009
______________________________

KEITH A. BARBER, 

                                                                                                 Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

                                                                                                 Appellee
_________________________________

FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2007-418,534; HON. CECIL G. PURYEAR, PRESIDING
_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion
_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
          Keith A. Barber appeals his conviction of possession of a controlled substance
(cocaine).  He does so in one issue in which he claims error on the part of the trial court
in allowing a Department of Public Safety chemist to testify from a report of another
chemist.  We affirm the judgment. 
          Whether or not the testimony was admissible, appellant only objected when the
State propounded its first question about the report’s content.  Yet, that was not the only
question propounded by the State on that subject.  And, when it asked its other questions,
appellant raised no complaint.  Nor had he requested and received a running objection
after the trial court overruled his first objection or sought to attack the testimony outside the
jury’s presence.  Consequently, his complaint was not preserved.  Ethington v. State, 819
S.W.2d 854, 859-60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  
          Accordingly, appellant’s issue is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
 
                                                                           Per Curiam

Do not publish.