Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ROGER MILLER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Opinion By Justice Morris
In this case, Roger Miller pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. After hearing evidence, the trial court sentenced appellant to forty years in prison. In one issue, appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion in admitting irrelevant evidence about a third party's abuse of the complainant. We affirm.
Evidence showed appellant sexually assaulted R.K.M. multiple times over a three-year period beginning when R.K.M. was eight years old. At the sentencing hearing, R.K.M.'s mother testified the allegations against appellant came to light after she learned R.K.M. had been sexually assaulted by an unrelated third party, Chance Owen. R.K.M.'s mother testified Owen had “done some things” to her child; Owen had been charged with aggravated sexual assault; the charge was pending; and a trial date was set. Appellant did not object to any of this testimony. Then, four questions later,
the prosecutor again asked if charges had been filed against Owen, and defense counsel objected “to any questioning regarding something that has nothing to do with this offense.” The trial court overruled the objection, and R.K.M.'s mother responded affirmatively.
On appeal, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of the alleged abuse by Owen and Owen's criminal status, arguing it was irrelevant and prejudicial.
To preserve error in admitting evidence, a party must lodge a timely and specific objection and obtain an adverse ruling. Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a); Fuller v. State, 253 S.W.3d 220, 232 (Tex.Crim.App.2008). An objection is timely if it comes at the earliest opportunity or as soon as the ground for objection becomes apparent. Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385, 403 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). An objection made after the prosecutor has elicited the testimony typically comes too late. Cruz v. State, 238 S.W.3d 381, 385 (Tex.App.-Houston [1 st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd).
Here, appellant failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review because his objection came too late. By the time appellant lodged his objection, R.K.M.'s mother had already testified Owen was charged with the aggravated sexual assault of R.K.M. and a trial date was set. We overrule the sole issue.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
JOSEPH B. MORRIS JUSTICE
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 05–10–00815–CR
Decided: August 29, 2011
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)