Court Opinion

ID: 9882107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 08:28:47.123429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:49.584335
License: Public Domain

In The
                              Court of Appeals
                     Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                   No. 07-23-00010-CR

                   CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL YAGER, APPELLANT

                                           V.

                          THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                           On Appeal from the 108th District Court
                                   Potter County, Texas
          Trial Court No. 079319-E-CR, Honorable Douglas R. Woodburn, Presiding

                                    October 3, 2023
                            MEMORANDUM OPINION
                     Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

      Christopher Michael Yager appeals the trial court’s judgment memorializing his

conviction for murder. His sole issue on appeal concerns whether he was denied his

Sixth Amendment right to confront a toxicologist when her testimony from a prior “hearing”

was read to the jury. The toxicologist was unavailable to testify due to a death in her

family. Appellant not only withheld objection when her testimony was so read but also

expressly acquiesced to the procedure. The denial of the right to confront a witness being

subject to preservation, Allison v. State, 666 S.W.3d 750, 756 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023);
Van Anden v. State, No. 07-16-00180-CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13136, at *6 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo Dec. 9, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication), and

appellant’s having withheld objection, he waived his complaint. 1 Indeed, it can also be

said that he invited the purported error about which he complains. See Prystash v. State,

3 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (en banc) (“If a party affirmatively seeks action

by the trial court, that party cannot later contend that the action was error.”). Thus, we

overrule his sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                              Brian Quinn
                                                                              Chief Justice

Do not publish.

        1   We find misplaced appellant’s reliance on Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1 (1966), as support for
arguing that trial counsel cannot waive his client’s right to confront witnesses. Brookhart dealt with “whether
counsel has power to enter a plea which is inconsistent with his client’s expressed desire and thereby waive
his client’s constitutional right to plead not guilty and have a trial in which he can confront and cross-examine
the witnesses against him.” Id. at 7. Here, we do not deal with trial counsel’s entering a plea inconsistent
with the wishes of his client.
                                                       2