Kristeen Brooke Adams v. State

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-09-00014-CR ______________________________ KRISTEEN BROOKE ADAMS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court Franklin County, Texas Trial Court No. 11028 Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION At Kristeen Brooke Adams' jury trial for misdemeanor assault, testimony conflicted concerning whether Adams struck Cristi Haley in the face during their confrontation, which related to some spousal support checks. Also placed into evidence, over Adams' objection, was testimony that, during some unspecified three-year period, Adams had worked as a dancer. Adams was convicted of assault, a class A misdemeanor. The trial court assessed her punishment at 180 days' confinement, probated for one year, and a $1,500.00 fine. Adams appeals with a single point of error asserting error in the admission of the testimony that Adams was a dancer. Because no error was preserved for our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. The record shows that Adams testified about the confrontation, explaining her version of events and claiming that she did not strike Haley. Adams was then questioned by counsel and testified briefly about her own background: that she had worked in law enforcement as a dispatcher and a jailer and had learned how to handle herself while dealing with violent individuals or mental cases in that setting. On cross-examination, the State questioned Adams at length about the incident and then questioned her about her various employments. In response, Adams testified in greater detail about her work history: approximately two years working in law enforcement as a dispatcher and jailer, six and a half years as a dental assistant, and the last year or two owning and operating a café. The State then asked her if she had worked as a dancer. (1) She answered that she had, but then she asked the State what that was relevant to. After an exchange among counsel and the trial court, Adams' counsel objected generally to the question, but the objection was overruled. To preserve error for appellate review: (1) the complaining party must make a timely objection specifying the grounds for the objection, if the grounds are not apparent from the context; (2) the objection must be made at the earliest possible opportunity; and (3) the complaining party must obtain an adverse ruling from the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Further, an objection based on one legal theory may not be used to support a different legal theory on appeal. Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Rogers v. State, No. 06-08-00133-CR, 2009 WL 1811081 (Tex. App.--Texarkana June 26, 2009, pet. filed). For two reasons, the error here urged has not been preserved. First, by the time the objection was made, not only had the answer been given, but an intervening discussion had taken place. Thus, the objection was not timely. Second, there is no basis for the objection stated. Adams refers to a motion in limine to demonstrate that the trial court understood the objection; but neither the written motion in limine, nor the related discussion before the trial court raises the issue now argued or even refers to anything concerning Adams' work as a dancer. The contention now raised on appeal has not been preserved for our review. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: November 18, 2009 Date Decided: November 19, 2009 Do Not Publish 1. Adams argues that the State was attempting to impeach the witness on a collateral matter--and points out that courts have specifically held that past employment as an exotic dancer is indeed collateral. Rankin v. State, 41 S.W.3d 335, 343-44 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd). Although counsel argues prejudice because the evidence was that she was an exotic dancer, that is not what was actually said. She testified that she had been a dancer. alse" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-10-00182-CR ______________________________ WILLIAM SCOTT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 217th Judicial District Court Angelina County, Texas Trial Court No. CR-27774 Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION William Scott was adjudicated guilty in Angelina County[1] of indecency with a child and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Scott filed his notice of appeal September 3, 2010. This Court has now been informed that Scott has died. The death of an appellant during the pendency of his or her appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 7.1(a)(2); Whitmire v. State, 943 S.W.2d 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Rheinlander v. State, 918 S.W.2d 527, 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Accordingly, we permanently abate this appeal. Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: April 7, 2011 Date Decided: April 8, 2011 Do Not Publish [1]This case was transferred to this Court from the Tyler Court of Appeals as part of the Texas Supreme Court’s docket equalization program. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005). We are not aware of any conflict between the precedent of the Tyler Court and the precedent of this Court on any issue relevant in this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.