Eric Limon v. State

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-13-00614-CR
ERIC LIMON APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1330739D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
A jury convicted Appellant Eric Limon of burglary of a habitation and
assessed his punishment at twenty-three years’ confinement.
In one issue, Limon argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion
for mistrial when the latent fingerprint examiner used hearsay from another latent
fingerprint examiner to enhance her credibility. Specifically, Limon argues that
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
when the latent fingerprint examiner testified that someone else in the crime
scene investigators’ unit verified her analysis and conclusion that the prints found
in the complainant’s home were Limon’s; that this bolstered her credibility; and
that because the case turned on her credibility, denying the motion for mistrial
was harmful error. The State responds that this complaint is not preserved
because the same evidence was admitted later without objection.
Police lifted two latent fingerprints from one of the bedrooms of the
burglarized home and mounted them on fingerprint cards. At trial, Anna-Dia
Tricksey, a latent fingerprint examiner, explained to the jury what a latent print
was and described what examiners look for when determining if two prints are a
match. She further testified that she had compared Limon’s fingerprints to those
found on one of the fingerprint cards and that they matched.
The following exchange occurred during Tricksey’s direct examination:
[State]: As a matter, I guess, of procedure there with the
Arlington Police Department, any time a latent print examiner such
as yourself makes a comparison or an identification like what we see
in State’s Exhibit 18 and 19, is that reviewed by anybody else there
with the latent print unit to verify your conclusions?
[Witness]: Yes, sir.
[State]: Can you kind of explain how that’s all done, what the
procedure is, and how you go about having someone verify?
[Witness]: Yes. The procedure is called ACEV, which is
analysis comparison and evaluation, which is what I did in this case.
And the V is verification. In our unit, we do 100 percent verification,
which means we verify not only the identifications or the matches,
but also any exclusions, insufficient quality, and inconclusives—
2
inconclusive opinions. In this case, CSI, or the crime scene, did the
verification of this print. [Emphasis added.]
[Defense counsel]: Your honor, I’m going to object to that as
hearsay.
The Court: Sustained
....
[Defense counsel]: I’m going to ask the jury as required by law
to disregard that.
The Court: Jury will disregard the hearsay statement.
[Defense counsel]: And as required by law, I’ll ask for a
mistrial.
The Court: That’s denied.
[State]: But basically, without getting into her opinions, the
comparisons and the analysis that you did was looked at by
Shannon Reeves[2] also?
[Witness]: That’s correct.
During Tricksey’s cross-examination, defense counsel elicited the following
testimony:
[Defense counsel]: What would happen sometimes—what
happens sometimes when two experts disagree with one another?
Why would that take place in a situation like this?
[Witness]: In this case it didn’t, so I’m not sure. . . .
[Emphasis added.]
2
Reeves is another Arlington Police Department latent print examiner.
3
To preserve error, a party must continue to object each time the
objectionable evidence is offered. Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11, 13 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2003); Martinez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)
(citing Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)); Clay v.
State, 361 S.W.3d 762, 766 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).
As set out above, before Tricksey’s testimony drew the hearsay objection
sustained by the trial court, she testified, without objection, that another person
verifies all conclusions regarding the comparison or identification of a print.
Following Limon’s sustained hearsay objection, Tricksey testified, without
objection, that Reeves, another latent print examiner, had reviewed her work.
And on cross-examination, defense counsel’s question elicited a response from
Tricksey that another expert had agreed with her findings. Because Limon did
not object each time the State offered the objectionable evidence, he has not
preserved this complaint for our review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Geuder,
115 S.W.3d at 13. Therefore, we overrule Limon’s sole issue and affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
/s/ Bob McCoy
BOB MCCOY
JUSTICE
PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: November 20, 2014
4