Ruby Joyce Jackson v. State

Jackson v. State IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-92-057-CR      RUBY JOYCE JACKSON,                                                                                               Appellant      v.      THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                                               Appellee From the 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court # 612,115                                                                                                     OPINION ON REHEARING                                                                                                           Our opinion of October 30, 1992 cites Cannon v. State, 537 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) on the last line of page three. The citation should read Creeks v. State, 537 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976).       Appellant's motion for rehearing is denied.                                                                                   BILL VANCE                                                                                  Justice Before Justice Cummings and           Justice Vance           (Chief Justice Thomas not participating) Motion denied Opinion delivered and filed December 9, 1992 Do not publish tyle='font-family:Palatino'>(“constitutional errors may be waived or forfeited by a failure to make a timely and specific assertion of the right”). His due process complaint is not preserved for appellate review. Moreover, “error [if any] in the admission of evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection.” Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); see Roberson v. State, 100 S.W.3d 36, 40 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. ref’d).  As the State points out, Detective Steve January, Mark Hodde, and June Hodde all testified without objection to the contents of the photographs. A list of items stolen from the Hoddes’ home, including items depicted in the photographs, was admitted into evidence without objection. In light of this unobjected to evidence, any error in admitting the photographs was harmless. See Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 193; see also Roberson, 100 S.W.3d at 40. Accordingly, we overrule Phillips’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.  FELIPE REYNA Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Vance, and Justice Reyna Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed October 3, 2007 Do not publish [CR25]     [1]            Article 39.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for discovery of particular evidence that is in the “possession, custody or control of the State or any of its agencies.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 39.14(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006).  “[D]enial of a proper discovery request, either during or before trial, may violate a defendant's due process rights.” Valdez v. State, 116 S.W.3d 94, 99 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d); see Ealoms v. State, 983 S.W.2d 853, 859 (Tex. App.—Waco 1998, pet. ref'd).