Michael Anthony Pena v. State ( 2012 )

NO. 07-11-0222-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
DECEMBER 20, 2012
______________________________
MICHAEL ANTHONY PENA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 121ST DISTRICT COURT OF YOAKUM COUNTY;
NO. 2871; HONORABLE KELLY G. MOORE, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
CONCURRING OPINION
Appellant, Michael Anthony Pena, appeals his conviction for the offense of
driving while intoxicated with a child passenger. 1 By the third of his four issues,
Appellant contends the trial court erred in permitting Scott Williams, the State’s forensic
scientist, to express an opinion concerning his level of intoxication at the time of arrest
based upon retrograde extrapolation of his blood alcohol level at the time of a
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.045. (W EST 2011).
subsequent blood draw, some 35 minutes later. While I agree with the ultimate
conclusion reached by the majority, I write separately to express my opinion that
Appellant did properly preserve his objection concerning Williams’s opinion testimony.
Appellant objected to both the sufficiency of the information Williams used to
formulate his opinion and the lack of a “proper foundation.” While it is axiomatic that the
objection advanced on appeal must comport with the objection advanced at trial,
Appellant need not be exact in his objection in order to preserve that error for appeal.
Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333, 337 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012) (holding that "no talismanic
words are needed to preserve error as long as the court can understand from the
context what the complaint is.") Under the circumstances of this case, I have no doubt
the learned trial judge understood the objection to include the background and
credentials of the witness to opine on the matter of retrograde extrapolation.
Accordingly, I would find the issue was properly preserved.
That said, the erroneous admission of retrograde extrapolation testimony is
considered non-constitutional error, subject to a harm analysis. Mata v. State, 143
S.W.3d 331, 332 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). Therefore, we review a judge’s decision to
admit retrograde extrapolation evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, Bigon v.
State, 252 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008), and we disregard non-constitutional
error that does not affect the substantial rights of the defendant. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b).
Accordingly, assuming Appellant’s objection was properly preserved, and even further
assuming Williams lacked sufficient information to form an admissible expert opinion as
to the extrapolated blood alcohol content of Appellant at the time of his arrest, as the
majority points out, from a review of the entire record, there is a fair assurance that the
2
error in admitting that testimony did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect on
the determination of guilt or innocence as to be harmless error. Johnson v. State, 967
S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998).
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Do not publish.
3