Lester Fane Webb v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                          COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 02-14-00368-CR
    LESTER FANE WEBB                                                      APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                          STATE
    ----------
    FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
    TRIAL COURT NO. 1304635D
    ----------
    MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
    ----------
    A jury convicted Appellant Lester Fane Webb of aggravated sexual assault
    of a child under the age of fourteen years and assessed his punishment at seven
    years’ confinement. The trial court sentenced him accordingly. In a single point,
    Appellant contends that the trial court reversibly erred by refusing to allow him to
    present evidence concerning his good character.
    1
    See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
    As the State points out, to preserve error in a trial court’s exclusion of
    evidence, the substance of the excluded evidence must be shown by an offer of
    proof unless it is apparent from the context of the questions asked. 2 Error may
    be preserved by an offer of proof, either in question-and-answer form or in the
    form of a concise statement by counsel. 3 Counsel’s concise statement must
    include a summary of the proposed testimony. 4 Here, trial counsel made no
    offer of proof. We note, however, that by skillful questioning, able trial counsel
    nevertheless managed to present to the jury the witness’s opinion:
    Q.    Are you familiar for—with his reputation in the community for
    being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen?
    A.    Yes, we are.
    Q.    Okay. And what is that reputation?
    A.    It’s a very upstanding reputation, caring [and] law abiding.
    Q.    Uh-huh. And his reputation for honesty?
    A.    Very good.
    Q.    Okay. Would you trust him around your grandchildren?
    A.    I sure would.
    Q.    No hesitation?
    2
    Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2); Bundy v. State, 
    280 S.W.3d 425
    , 428 (Tex.
    App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’d).
    3
    Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2), (c); Love v. State, 
    861 S.W.2d 899
    , 901 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 1993).
    4
    
    Love, 861 S.W.2d at 901
    .
    2
    A.     No hesitation.
    Q.     You understand what he is charged with here today?
    A.     Yes, [I] do.
    Q.     And you understand it involves R[.]?
    A.     Right.
    Q.     And the allegation is sexual abuse?
    A.     Right.
    Q.     And I can sit here and go into all the details about what the
    allegation involves. Would that change your opinion of Mr.
    Webb?
    A.     No.
    Because Appellant did not preserve error, we overrule his sole point and
    affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    /s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot
    LEE ANN DAUPHINOT
    JUSTICE
    PANEL: DAUPHINOT, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    DELIVERED: June 11, 2015
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-14-00368-CR

Filed Date: 6/12/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/13/2015