Kenza Triplett v. State ( 2012 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00728-CR
Kenza TRIPLETT,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2009CR11224C
Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 28, 2012
AFFIRMED
A jury found appellant Kenza Triplett guilty of murder. The trial court sentenced Triplett
to sixty years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Institutional Division.
On appeal, Triplett contends the State engaged in improper jury argument at the guilt/innocence
phase of the trial. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
BACKGROUND
The facts are unnecessary to our disposition of the appeal. Accordingly, we provide a
brief rendition of the facts for context. After an evening spent selling crack, Triplett and three
04-11-00728-CR
others drove to a known crack house in west San Antonio. Once there, Triplett covered his face
with a bandana and entered a back bedroom. In the bedroom, Triplett brandished a shotgun, and
shouted, “How much money you got [. . .]?” Triplett then shot and killed Derek Anderson when
Anderson tried to grab the shotgun from Triplett.
ANALYSIS
Triplett raises a single complaint: the State engaged in improper jury argument at the
guilt/innocence phase of the trial when the prosecutor referred to the demands of the community
as a rationale for returning a verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment. However, we need
not determine whether the State engaged in improper jury argument because Triplett has not
preserved this issue for our review. Although Triplett objected to the State’s argument, the trial
court, while not specifically sustaining the objection, instructed the jury to “render a decision
only on the law and the evidence submitted before you.”
During the closing argument, the following occurred:
[STATE’S ATTORNEY]: And when this case is over, you haven’t been able to
talk to your friends, your family yet about the evidence in this case, but think
about it. You talk to the person you know with the most common sense and
you’re telling them about this case. You know, oh my god, it was horrible. It was
this crack house. This guy put on a bandana, he went in carrying a shotgun, he
went into a back bedroom, and he – and he blew the guy away. And it was
horrible. And he – he was a crypt [sic], he was a member of a violent street gang.
He had 15 to 20 weapons in the course of his life. You know, he steals from
school kids, he’s the kind of person that would spit on a guard. He’s accused of
beating his common law wife. He apparently still has his connects [sic] so that he
can get dope in jail. And it was a horrible case. The pictures were awful. It was
just rotten. You know, there was [sic] a number of people that testified against
him.
And your friend, or your neighbor, or your spouse will say, well, you found him
guilty of murder, right? And, no, we found him guilty of criminally negligent
homicide, you know, credit for time served. How – How can that be? Well –
[DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: I object.
-2-
04-11-00728-CR
[STATE’S ATTORNEY]: – he took the stand –
THE COURT: Hold on
[DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: I object to this line of argument. They’re asking the
jury to base their verdict and opinions on people outside of evidence, outside of
this trial.
THE COURT: Remember, ladies and gentlemen, according to your oath, you will
render a decision only on the law and the evidence submitted before you. You
may proceed.
[STATE’S ATTORNEY]: He took the stand, though, and two years later he said
that it was an accident, that he was just playing around. You know, you cannot –
you can dress him up, you put glasses on him, you can change his appearance, but
you can’t change the facts, and you can’t change what he is. He is a cold-blooded
killer and he is guilty of murder. Thank you.
(emphasis added). Triplett’s counsel made no other objection to the State’s argument and
did not move for a mistrial after the trial court instructed the jury that it was to consider only the
law and the evidence.
To preserve error for appellate review, the complaining party must make a specific
objection or complaint, and obtain on ruling thereon. Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2002); see Rezac v. State, 782 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (holding that
“[i]n order for issue to be preserved on appeal, there must be a timely objection which
specifically states the legal basis for the objection.”). Requiring a party to present a timely
complaint to the lower court ensures that trial courts are provided an opportunity to correct any
error “at the most convenient and appropriate time – when the mistakes are alleged to have been
made.” Hull v. State, 67 S.W.3d 215, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). As the court explained in
Gillenwaters v. State:
The requirement that complaints be raised in the trial court (1) ensures that the
trial court will have an opportunity to prevent or correct errors, thereby
eliminating the need for a costly and time-consuming appeal and retrial; (2)
guarantees that opposing counsel will have a fair opportunity to respond to
-3-
04-11-00728-CR
complaints; and (3) promotes the orderly and effective presentation of the case to
the trier of fact.
205 S.W.3d 534, 537 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
A defendant’s failure to object to a jury argument or 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. Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Here, as
noted above, Triplett made no further objection after the trial court’s instruction, and never
sought a mistrial. Accordingly, he never received an adverse ruling.
Accordingly, we overrule Triplett’s complaint because he failed to preserve it for our
review.
CONCLUSION
Having determined Triplett failed to preserve his complaint about the State’s alleged
improper jury argument, given the trial court’s curative instruction and Triplett’s failure to obtain
any adverse ruling, we overrule Triplett’s sole complaint and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Do Not Publish
-4-