Charles Joseph Ballard v. State ( 2017 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-16-00333-CR
CHARLES JOSEPH BALLARD, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 108th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 70247-E, Honorable Bradley S. Underwood, Presiding
December 15, 2017
CONCURRING OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL J., and HANCOCK, S.J.1
I agree with the Court’s disposition of this appeal, and join in the Court’s opinion,
with the exception of its holding that appellant failed to preserve his contention that the
evidence of appellant’s extraneous bad acts toward B.M. should have been excluded
under Rule of Evidence 403. I would hold that counsel’s objection stating that the
probative value of the evidence “is going to be outweighed by the prejudicial effect” was
1 Mackey K. Hancock, Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
sufficient to make plain to the trial court which Rule 403 ground for exclusion counsel was
invoking. See TEX. R. EVID. 403 (stating relevant evidence may be excluded if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of, inter alia, “unfair prejudice”);
cf. Checo, 402 S.W.3d at 451 (finding general objection “under Rule 403” did not identify
for the court which distinct ground listed in the rule was being argued as a basis for
exclusion). Nonetheless, after review of the record, I conclude the trial court did not abuse
its discretion by admitting B.M.’s testimony of appellant’s conduct toward her.
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
2