Emanuel Pereira Perez v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-22-00121-CR
NO. 09-22-00122-CR
NO. 09-22-00123-CR
NO. 09-22-00124-CR
________________
EMANUEL PEREIRA PEREZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 20-34625, 20-34626, 20-34627 and 20-34628
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Emanuel Pereira Perez appeals his conviction for three counts of Aggravated
Sexual Assault of a Child and one count of Indecency with a Child. See Tex. Penal
Code Ann. §§ 22.021, 21.11. A jury found Perez guilty of each count and sentenced
Perez to seventy years’ incarceration for each count of aggravated sexual assault of
a child and twenty years for indecency with a child. The Court ordered the seventy-
1
year sentences to run concurrently and the twenty-year sentence to run consecutive
to the seventy-year sentences.
In four issues on appeal, Perez argues the trial court erred by not asking for
challenges for cause during jury selection, abused its discretion by dismissing a juror
who did not have a disability as outlined in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,
and erred when it commented on the weight of the evidence during direct
examination of a State’s witness. Finally, he contends the trial court judge was not a
“neutral arbitrator [sic].” We affirm.
Background
Due to the nature of the issues on appeal, we will recite the background facts
necessary to our discussion within each issue. In March 2022, Perez was convicted
of three counts of Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child and one count of Indecency
with a Child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.11, 22.021. Perez timely appealed.
Issues One and Two
Because issues one and two both pertain to jury selection, we address these
issues together. In his first issue, Perez argues the trial court erred by not asking for
challenges for cause during jury selection. Specifically, Perez contends that during
jury selection, the trial court did not ask the State or defense for challenges for cause
because it expressed “frustration with the fact that there were not enough potential
2
jurors on this case and implied that this mistake might result in the panel being
‘busted.’”
The following exchange occurred during jury selection.
[THE TRIAL COURT]: We recall the cases involving Emanuel Perez
in Cause Nos. 20-34625, 34626, 34627 and 34628. The defendant and
his attorneys and the State’s attorneys are present. The Court has
received a jury compilation based upon the strikes made by the parties.
Have the parties received this list, reviewed it; and any objections to
seating the jurors as compiled?
[THE STATE]: No objection, Your Honor.
[TRIAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: None from the defense, Your
Honor.
Nothing in our rules requires the trial court to specifically request whether the
parties have any challenges for cause. The trial court here asked the parties if they
had any objections to seating the jurors as compiled, and the defense and State
announced they had no objections. The Code of Criminal Procedure article 35.16
addresses challenges for cause made during voir dire, and it provides: “(a) A
challenge for cause is an objection made to a particular juror, alleging some fact
which renders the juror incapable or unfit to serve on the jury. A challenge for cause
may be made by either the state or the defense for any one of the following
reasons[.]” See Hicks v. State, 606 S.W.3d 308, 315 (Tex. App. 2020) (emphasis
added). The burden to object to a prospective juror lies with the party who is
claiming the juror isn’t qualified to serve on the jury. Perez did not raise any
3
objections or make a challenge for cause at the end of jury selection to any jurors
selected to serve on the jury in his trial. Therefore, he failed to preserve the complaint
he raised in his first issue for our review in his appeal. See Buntion v. State, 482
S.W.3d 58, 69 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (holding a party did not preserve objection
to the jury when he failed to object after the trial court asked the parties if there were
any objections to the jury “as seated or selected”).
In his second issue, Perez argues that the trial court erred when it replaced a
juror accused of sleeping during the trial. When the juror was questioned, he denied
that he was sleeping. According to Perez, the trial court’s decision to replace the
juror isn’t supported by the record since the juror, when questioned, denied he was
sleeping. However, the record shows that after the trial court questioned the juror,
the trial court told the parties that the court had been watching the juror, he appeared
to be sleeping, was not paying attention, and that the court intended to remove the
juror and replace him with an alternate. Perez didn’t object to the court’s proposal.
After the juror told the trial court he was not sleeping, the trial court excused the jury
and had the following discussion about the juror with the parties:
THE COURT: Okay. You can go. Thank you. Is somebody helping
you? The jury has exited. We’ve got an obvious problem with a juror
that is constantly sleeping. The juror next to him, to his right, I’ve
watched, has had to wake him up four or five times during this last
witness. During the last witness, which I would say is probably the most
serious witness in this case as far as the impact or certainly what was
going to be provided in the State’s case in chief. What do you-all want
to do? He’s got an issue. He’s been sleeping since the first witness.
4
We’ve seen it. The bailiffs have told me literally every witness, he has
fallen asleep and he has had to be constantly awakened. He has not –
he does not have the ability to pay attention to this testimony. He has
not heard it when he’s sleeping. What do you-all want to do?
[THE STATE]: Your Honor, I would ask that the Court replace him
with the alternate juror. If he’s been sleeping through the testimony, the
evidence in this case, he’s not capable of making a decision in reaching
a verdict.
THE COURT: What do you-all say? What’s the defense say? I mean,
you’ve got a vantage point. I think it’s readily apparent to all of us that
the man is sleeping. The question is: Is that something that an alternate
who is available can sit for? I mean, it’s clear to this Court that he has
missed vast amounts of evidence. He’s completely and totally been
asleep and he cannot – it doesn’t take him long after a break to fall
asleep, which renders a very great concern. I’ve done this for a long
time. I’ve really never seen a juror in my life who has this issue. What
do you-all say?
[TRIAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: We’ll defer to the Court.
THE COURT: All right. Why don’t we – should we bring him in and
ask him if he can explain himself or will it make a difference? I don’t
know how – no matter what, if it’s narcolepsy or medicine or an issue
that is not being – that he is not being treated for, I don’t know how that
can really replace the failure to listen to the evidence and hear the
evidence.
[TRIAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: Let’s bring him in.
[…]
THE COURT: Here’s what the Court decisions have stated, because
there is not a clear statute on it. But the decisions under Article 33.011
under alternate jurors states, first of all, that the trial court has discretion
to determine whether a juror has become disabled and to seat an
alternate juror. Disability of a juror that authorizes replacement with
alternate jurors means the jurors are suffering from a physical illness,
mental condition or emotional state that would hinder or inhibit the
5
juror from performing his or her duties as a juror or that the juror is
suffering from a condition that inhibits him from fully and fairly
performing the functions of a juror. If you’re not listening to the
evidence, you have no ability to function as a juror, because a juror is
supposed to consider all the evidence and in a discerning way determine
whether beyond a reasonable doubt has been met or not. So, from his
manifestations, he is suffering under some kind of a physical, mental or
emotional state where he is not coherent, lucid and conscience[sic]
during the evidence.
[…]
[]I’m going to bring the man in, if there is no objection?
[TRIAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: No objection, Judge. I just think
based on what you just read, I think you have to make a finding of
disability.
THE COURT: Well, I can listen –
[TRIAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: At least, that’s how it seemed to
me; but we’ll defer to the Court however the Court wants to handle it.
THE COURT: Whatever is causing his inabilities to stay awake is some
problem because it also states here that would hinder or inhibit him
from fully and fairly performing the function of a juror and I think we
all have to agree that the full and fair functioning of a juror demands
being awake.
[…]
(Juror Enters Courtroom)
THE COURT: [Juror], we have been watching here. You’re having
problems staying awake for whatever reason. The Court has the
discretion to replace a juror who seems or appears unable to continue
to serve as a juror. One of the most important things is the ability to be
awake and be listening to all the testimony and evidence. I’m watching
people awake nudge you to keep you awake. The bailiffs have been
watching. I’ve been watching, and it has been consistent. I don’t know
6
if it’s maybe physical or a medical issue or whatever. Maybe you’re
taking some medicine but you are not able to stay awake and the most
important thing that jurors have to do are be awake and lucid during all
of the testimony and if someone was asleep and it was determined, there
is an argument that that was maybe the most important piece of
evidence that was presented when they were not awake, see. So, can
you tell me if – and you don’t have to divulge any medical things but
you’re struggling and I don’t think that’s probably normal of you but
you’re struggling here and for whatever reason, that – we can’t go and
redo all the testimony, you know.
A JUROR: I’m sorry.
THE COURT: But number one, thank you for your service as a juror
but –
A JUROR: I didn’t mean to give that impression.
THE COURT: But it’s obvious. You have to know. They’ve been –
people have been nudging you to –
A JUROR: It’s easier for me to – I’ve been pretty lucid, and it’s easier
for me to pay attention and be involved with my eyes shut. I’m not
sleeping over there. I snore and everything when I sleep, and I stretch
and all that. It was just easier for me to follow along and some of the
things that were said that I understood and heard, I think –
THE COURT: Are you saying to this Court that you have heard all of
the testimony?
A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Well, you could have fooled all of us.
A JUROR: I didn’t mean to give that impression.
THE COURT: When they nudge you, it’s kind of like when people get
stunned awake.
A JUROR: I’m sorry.
7
THE COURT: It’s not – look, it’s easy enough to replace. We have an
alternate to replace. And you, there is no shame in this.
A JUROR: Well, I don’t mean to bother anyone.
THE COURT: It’s not bothering but we have constitutional rights and
issues. We have people who are all part of the allegations surrounding
this indictment and it’s obvious people are seeing what appears to be
sleeping and that does not render any decision of this jury when you
have to deliberate. People lose faith that that’s being done in the best
fashion when they see, and they can see.
A JUROR: I’m sorry to leave that impression. These glasses, too, are
brand-new. I’m getting used to them. In fact, they were prescribed by a
doctor because of the glare on the lights. So, it’s just easier and more
comfortable for me to shut my eyes; but no, I’m not asleep. I’m keeping
abreast of everything; but if it’s a bother to you, Judge Stevens, and
your personnel and this court, I don’t mind being removed. Sorry.
THE COURT: It’s just an apparent concern that everybody has.
A JUROR: No, sir, I’m fine.
THE COURT: So, you’re saying that –
A JUROR: I can’t promise that my eyes won’t shut.
THE COURT: Sometimes I just – I wear contacts and sometimes it gets
irritated and it’s more comfortable to close your eyes.
A JUROR: From my arrival on yesterday when I was first summoned
until this afternoon, 3:00 o’clock, I’ve been lucid and involved and
paying attention.
THE COURT: In all the testimony?
A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You haven’t fallen asleep at all?
8
A JUROR: No.
THE COURT: All right. Okay. Okay.
A JUROR: But with all due respect, I can continue or it’s your
discretion for me to –
THE COURT: All right. Well, I can’t disprove that. I didn’t hear
snoring, I must say.
A JUROR: I’m not asleep.
THE COURT: But it appears if you were resting your eyes, you had us
all fooled that you were asleep. Okay. All right. Just be – it’s an open
courtroom. So people come in, and they see what they see. They can
see and so, we all need to be –
A JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: -- a hundred percent –
A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- for this to all be legitimate, as important as it is.
A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You can do that?
A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You can do that? You can – you’re alert in all of this is
what you’re saying to me, and you’ve heard all the testimony?
A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Then we’ll bring everybody in here in
a few minutes, okay? Thank you.
A JUROR: Am I excused?
9
THE COURT: No, sir. But you can leave.
(Juror Exits Courtroom)
THE COURT: All right. Now we go to he says what he had to say, but
I’ve lived long enough to know sleeping when I see it. Everybody is
looking and the people next to him are having to nudge him and he jerks
awake as though he has been sleeping. I mean, if he’s not sleeping, you
could have fooled me in my lifetime of experience and life. It sure
appeared to me that he was falling asleep consistently through this trial.
So, what do we do? I can still – I’ve heard what he has to say but that
doesn’t mean that – does it defy logic – is it enough to defy the logic
and our experiences in life? We know sleep when we see it, my
goodness. But he had a good answer but the question is, when they
nudge him awake, I can’t – I don’t believe that he was – I think he’s
just anxious not to disappoint himself and others here but the apparent
– it’s apparent that he is not – he’s suffering from some issue that he
may not have disclosed but it’s obvious that he is – we all know
sleeping when we see it. You don’t have to snore. The State is asking
for him to be released or not?
[THE STATE]: Yes, Your Honor, the State is. I think that what he
disclosed to you upon your questioning is understandable that he would
not want to be in a position where he feels like he’s done something
wrong or be in trouble.
THE COURT: The fact –
[THE STATE]: I believe he was sleeping.
THE COURT: The fact of the matter is we all know it when we see it
and the man, I’ve never – it’s obvious. We all have lived long enough
to know when somebody is not paying attention or is asleep and this is
– every trial in this room requires 100 percent. Some people get groggy
and that’s why we get these breaks, but he has been out. I mean, his
head is on his chest and has been in every witness that I’ve watched and
I started early. In fact, this afternoon, it started within or the morning,
it started within a few minutes of us – and I’ve been watching today
and I’m going whatever happened yesterday, he hasn’t recovered from.
From the defense, do you-all object?
10
[TRIAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: No, Your Honor.
Perez complains the trial court abused its discretion by determining the juror
had a “disability” that required his removal from the panel. See Tex. Code of Crim.
Proc. Ann. Art. 33.011(b). As we stated above, Perez did not preserve this issue for
appeal. He did not object during the discussion regarding the juror nor did he object
when the trial court indicated it was going to replace the juror with the alternate.
Generally, a defendant must make a timely, specific objection at trial or he forfeits
his complaint on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). See also Cooks v. State,
844 S.W.2d 697, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). We overrule the appellant’s first and
second issues.
Issue Three
In his third issue on appeal, Perez argues the trial court erred when it
commented on the weight of the evidence during an objection. Perez contends that
the judge commented on the weight of the evidence when, after an objection that the
question called for speculation, the trial court overruled the objection and stated that
the witness would be “the best person in the world to answer the question.”
Perez did not object at trial to the trial court’s statement regarding this witness.
Generally, a defendant must make a timely, specific objection at trial or he forfeits
his complaint on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). And generally, the
defendant must timely object to the trial court’s comments or remarks, or the
11
defendant forfeits his right to complain on appeal. Sharpe v. State, 648 S.W.2d 705,
706 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).
The defendant contends the trial judge’s comment violates art. 38.05, Code of
Crim. Proc. which states the trial court “In ruling upon the admissibility of evidence,
the judge shall not discuss or comment upon the weight of the same or its bearing in
the case[.]” See Proenza v. State, 541 S.W.3d 786, 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).
A comment violates Article 38.05 if it is “reasonably calculated to benefit the State
or prejudice the defendant’s rights.” 541 S.W.3d at 791. If such an error occurs and
is raised as a freestanding statutory complaint, it is subject to a non-constitutional
harm analysis. Gonzalez v. State, 616 S.W.3d 585, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020).
Here, we conclude the complained-of-statement did not violate Article 38.05
because it was not reasonably calculated to benefit the State or prejudice the
defendant’s rights. See Proenza, 541 S.W.3d at 791. Alternatively, appellant
suffered no harm because the remark did not affect his substantial rights. Gonzalez,
616 at 594.
We also disagree with Perez’s assertion that the comment by the trial court to
the victim’s Mother deprived him of a fair and impartial trial. The trial court’s
comment did not bear upon Perez’s presumption of innocence, nor did it vitiate the
jury’s impartiality. See Jasper v. State, 61 S.W.3d 413, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
We overrule Perez’s third issue.
12
Issue Four
In his last issue, Perez contends that the trial court was not a “neutral arbitrator
[sic],” citing to three separate incidents, including an instance where he claims the
trial court commented on the weight of the evidence and explained to the State how
it could qualify an outcry witness.
Due process requires a neutral and detached trial court. See Gagnon v.
Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973). When an appellant claims judicial bias, we
review the entire record to determine whether it shows the trial court’s alleged bias
denied the appellant due process of law. Ex parte Freeman, 778 S.W.2d 874, 877
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no pet.). The proponent of a claim of bias
must demonstrate a “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair
judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
“[T]he terms ‘bias’ and ‘prejudice’ do not encompass all unfavorable rulings
towards an individual or her case, but instead must ‘connote a favorable or
unfavorable disposition or opinion that is somehow wrongful or inappropriate,
either because it is undeserved, or because it rests upon knowledge that the subject
ought not to possess …, or because it is excessive in degree.’” Abdygapparova v.
State, 243 S.W.3d 191, 198 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, pet. ref’d) (emphasis in
original) (quoting Liteky, 510 U.S. at 550). Absent a clear showing of bias, we
presume a trial court’s actions were neutral and detached. Brumit v. State, 206
13
S.W.3d 639, 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Steadman v. State, 31 S.W.3d 738, 741
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d).
Article 38.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
In ruling upon the admissibility of evidence, the judge shall not discuss or
comment upon the weight of the same or its bearing in the case, but shall
simply decide whether or not it is admissible; nor shall he, at any stage of the
proceeding previous to the return of the verdict, make any remark calculated
to convey to the jury his opinion of the case.
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 38.05; see also Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 794,
798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (holding that a trial judge must refrain from making any
remark calculated to convey his opinion of the case because jurors give special and
peculiar weight to the language and conduct of the trial judge). To comply with this
directive, a trial judge should limit his or her comments from the bench and maintain
an attitude of impartiality throughout the trial. Strong v. State, 138 S.W.3d 546, 552
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.); Hoang v. State, 997 S.W.2d 678, 680
(Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, no pet.). “A trial court improperly comments on the
weight of the evidence if it makes a statement that implies approval of the State’s
argument, that indicates any disbelief in the defense’s position, or that diminishes
the credibility of the defense’s approach to its case.” Hoang, 997 S.W.2d at 681(citations omitted). To constitute reversible error “any unauthorized comments must
be reasonably calculated to benefit the State or prejudice a defendant’s rights.”
Strong, 138 S.W.3d at 552. However, “[a] judge can lawfully provide guidance and
14
manage the presentation of evidence from the bench without abandoning his role as
an independent arbiter.” Id. at 552 (citing Tex. R. Evid. 611(a)).
Perez complains that the trial court’s partiality is reflected by (1) the trial
court’s comments made during an objection to testimony from one of the State’s
witnesses, (2) the trial court’s comments made during the State’s attempt to qualify
an outcry witness, and (3) going into “unnecessary details” about the allegations
against Perez during jury selection. With each contention, we review the record as a
whole, to determine whether there is evidence to support Perez’s allegation of
judicial bias. See Liteky, 510 U.S. 540 at 555-56; (requiring appellate review of
judicial bias to look for judicial remarks during the course of trial for “deep-seated
favoritism or antagonism”); see also Gonzalez v. State, No. 03-12-00620-CR, 2014
WL 6901181, *6 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 4, 2014, pet. ref’d) (mem. op) (not
designated for publication) (examining the record as a whole to determine if there
was judicial bias).
First, Perez points to the following exchange that occurred when Mother was
being questioned by the State to support his claim of judicial bias:
[THE STATE]: [Biological father] stopped coming for his children
after Mr. Perez began living with you?
[MOTHER OF VICTIM]: Only for a certain time because he’s a very
irresponsible father.
[THE STATE]: Does he pay support for his children?
15
[MOTHER OF VICTIM]: No.
[THE STATE]: Has there ever been any thought that his children might
be able to live with him if you were not married to Mr. Perez?
[MOTHER OF VICTIM]: I don’t understand.
THE COURT: Me neither.
[THE STATE]: Has it ever been a possibility that Estrella might be able
to live with her father?
[TRIAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: This calls for speculation.
THE COURT: I think she would be the best person on the planet to
know. It’s obviously couched from her perspective. The answer must
be from her perspective. Overruled. Go ahead.
The trial court’s comments concern the ambiguity of the question posed by
the prosecutor. The trial court’s comments were not about Perez, his alleged crimes,
the witness’s credibility, and didn’t relate to any testimony that she provided about
Perez or his conduct. See Singleton v. State, 91 S.W.3d 342, 352 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (holding at trial the court did not comment on the weight
of the evidence because “[n]one of these remarks was calculated to convey the
court’s opinion of the case to the jury, and none of them had an effect on the
presumption of innocence in the presence of the jury.”).
Second, Perez argues that the trial court was “coaching” the State’s attorney
during a hearing outside the presence of the jury regarding qualifying an outcry
16
witness. The following exchange occurred between the State and the trial court, after
the jury had been excused.
THE COURT: It’s not necessary. The statute requires the Court to make
findings in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the
statement is reliable based on the time, content and circumstances of
the statement. I’m not able to do that, am I? I don’t have all of that
information. That’s what the statute requires. So, if you’re going to use
that, I am unable to make a reliability determination. If this is all you
have with this witness, that’s not enough to allow it.
[…]
THE COURT: The issue on this hearing is the reliability of the
statement, the reliability of it, not just that I heard the statement; but
why is it reliable? That’s the main issue in this, folks. I haven’t heard
much except she heard a statement. Nothing about why that would be a
reliable statement.
[…]
THE COURT: Well, I haven’t heard anything why it’s reliable. Just
because she says it’s – it’s like a white horse. Why is it? Because it’s a
horse that’s white. No. Why is it reliable? Not because I relied on it.
Why did she rely? Why is it reliable? It’s clear here in the – the
reliability in this statute is based upon the reliability of the declaration,
not the witness. So, that’s what the case law says and it’s clear that’s
what has to be met and just a witness saying I relied on it is – what was
the basis of the reliance? Why? Why was this declaration of the child
one deemed by this witness to be reliable? Answer. That’s what has to
be answered. Not that it’s just – they told me something and it was
reliable. I concluded it was reliable. A review, a conclusion needs to be
supported by underlying support facts.
The trial court made no other comments during the State’s examination to
qualify the witness and subsequently found that the witness qualified as an outcry
17
witness under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.072. See Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 38.072.
A trial judge should limit his or her comments from the bench and maintain
an attitude of impartiality throughout the trial. Strong, 138 S.W.3d at 552; see also
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 38.05. However, “[a] judge can lawfully provide
guidance and manage the presentation of evidence from the bench without
abandoning his role as an independent arbiter.” Strong, 138 S.W.3d at 552 (citing
Tex. R. Evid. 611(a)); see also Liteky, 510 U.S. 540 at 556 (“A judge’s ordinary
efforts at courtroom administration—even a stern and short-tempered judge’s
ordinary efforts at courtroom administration—remain immune.”).
We find nothing in the complained of comments to support Perez’s argument
that the trial court was not acting as neutral arbiter during this exchange. The trial
court’s comments did no more than convey the trial court’s understanding of what
the trial court would review when making its decision over reliability and deciding
whether to admit the testimony of the outcry witness. We conclude the trial court’s
statements were within the trial court’s purview as the administrator of the
courtroom and its proceedings. See Celis v. State, 354 S.W.3d 7, 24 (Tex. App.—
Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2011), aff’d, 416 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)
(“[J]udicial rulings almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality
challenge.”); see also Strong, 138 S.W.3d at 553 (citing Tex. R. Evid. 611(a); Tex.
18
Code of Crim Proc. Ann. Art. 38.05) (“Under the rules of evidence and criminal
procedure, a trial judge can make comments regarding whether or not testimony can
be allowed.”)).
Finally, Perez argues that the trial court went into “unnecessary details”
regarding the indictment to the jury. However, he does not direct our court to what
details or statements in the record were unnecessary, nor does he cite to any legal
authority to explain why the trial court’s statement about the indictment shows bias.
An appellant waives an issue on appeal when he does not adequately brief an issue
by not providing supporting arguments, substantive analysis, and appropriate
citations to authorities and to the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); Russeau v.
State, 171 S.W.3d 871, 881 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Issue four is overruled.
Conclusion
Having overruled all of Perez’s issues on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s
judgments.
AFFIRMED.
Jay Wright
Justice
Submitted on May 19, 2023
Opinion Delivered September 13, 2023
Do Not Publish
Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.
19