Vina Chestnut v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 17, 2013.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-12-00738-CR
    VINA CHESTNUT, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the County Court at Law
    Austin County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 11CR29564
    MEMORANDUM                     OPINION
    A jury convicted appellant of assault. The trial court assessed punishment at
    confinement for one year in the Austin County Jail. The sentence was suspended
    and appellant was placed under community supervision for two years. Appellant
    filed a notice of appeal. We affirm.
    In a single issue, appellant claims the trial court erred in allowing Officer
    David Mosley to give his opinion on the legal definition of bodily injury.
    Appellant also complains Officer Mosley offered a legal conclusion that the “black
    eye and busted lip” injuries sustained by the complainant met that definition.
    The record reflects Officer Mosley testified as follows:
    Q. And is it your understanding that bodily injury constitutes physical
    pain, illness or impairment of the physical condition?
    A. Yes.
    [Defense Counsel]: Objection as to his conclusion on a legal
    definition, Your Honor.
    [The State]: Your Honor, I think he can testify whether he's familiar
    with it or not.
    THE COURT: Okay. The objection is overruled.
    Q. (By [The State]) And, so, are you familiar with that definition?
    A. Yes, I am.
    Q. Now in your opinion, did [the complainant] suffer bodily injury?
    A. Yes, he did.
    The only objection was made after the question was answered and therefore
    was not timely. See Erazo v. State, 
    260 S.W.3d 510
    , 514 (Tex. App.—Houston
    [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. ref’d) (objection made after complained-of testimony was
    not timely); see also Berry v. State, 
    233 S.W.3d 847
    , 857 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)
    (same). No objection was made when Officer Mosley was asked for his opinion as
    to whether the complainant suffered bodily injury.         Accordingly, nothing is
    preserved for our review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Appellant’s sole issue is
    overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    /s/  Sharon McCally
    Justice
    Panel consists of Justices Boyce, McCally and Busby.
    Do Not Publish— TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-12-00738-CR

Filed Date: 10/17/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/23/2015