No. 14-07-00451-CR
Opinion filed July 10, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1089706.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES, Justice FOWLER, and Justice BOYCE.
WANDA McKEE FOWLER, Justice.
Appellant Adrian Terrell Wilson was found guilty by a jury of murder and was sentenced by the trial court to life imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. On appeal, appellant raises two issues, contending in both that he was not allowed to confront and cross-examine witnesses in violation of state and federal constitutional protections. However, because appellant failed to raise this objection during the testimony of either witness at trial, he has failed to preserve the issues for appeal. We affirm.
I. Factual Background
On October 21, 2006, appellant and the eighteen-year-old complainant, Adrian Guillory, argued while outside an apartment complex in Houston. Appellant pulled out a gun and shot Guillory at least seven times, killing him. At trial, the State presented several witnesses, including Marcus Wright and Ashton Winters. Both Wright and Winters testified that they saw appellant shoot Guillory. Winters also testified that appellant came to his apartment afterward and directed him to hide the gun used in the shooting; appellant also threatened to kill Winters and his family if he told anyone what he had done. During appellant's case-in-chief, both appellant and another witness, Hershel Cartwright, testified that it was Marcus Wright, not appellant, who shot Guillory. II. Appellant Failed to Preserve Issues on Appeal
Appellant contends that the trial court erred by limiting his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses as provided in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution, and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). Specifically, he contends that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of Marcus Wright and Ashton Winters. A. Marcus Wright
In his first issue, appellant contends that the trial court ordered him not to question Marcus Wright about the complainant, Guillory, being a witness against Wright in a prior theft case. According to appellant, the testimony would have proved that Wright had a motive to kill Guillory and to lie about appellant being the shooter, and so would have been critical to appellant's case. Wright initially testified outside the jury's presence. At that time, the State elicited testimony from him that he had pleaded guilty in 2004 to the felony offense of theft. Wright testified that, at the time he pleaded guilty, he did not know that the complainant, Guillory, was a witness to the theft case, and he did not learn that Guillory was a possible witness until a couple of days before appellant's trial. Wright also testified that he and Guillory never discussed Guillory's having been a witness to the theft, and he had no ill will or hard feelings toward Guillory. The State then objected to "any testimony along these lines because there's been no evidence to show that this witness even knew that Adrian Guillory was a witness." The trial court stated, "Can't let you ask about it now." Appellant raised no objection at this time, nor did he object to any limitation on his right to confront or cross-examine Wright concerning the theft offense and whether Wright knew Guillory was a possible witness to the theft when he cross-examined him before the jury. Appellant's failure to object at trial on the grounds he raises on appeal preserves nothing for review. See Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d. 735, 752 n. 16 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (holding appellant's failure to object under the confrontation clause waived his argument on appeal); Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918, 924 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990) (holding appellant waived any claim that his rights to confrontation and due process/due course of law were violated by failing to object at trial); Grant v. State, 218 S.W.3d 225, 229 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref'd) (holding appellant waived claim that trial court violated his federal and state constitutional rights to confront witnesses against him as he did not raise any confrontation clause issue at trial); TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). We therefore overrule appellant's first issue. B. Ashton Winters
In his second issue, appellant contends that the trial court did not allow him to confront and cross-examine Ashton Winters concerning his reason for coming out of his apartment before he witnessed the shooting. According to appellant, this prevented him from cross-examining Winters concerning his credibility and his ability to remember facts accurately. On cross-examination, Winters confirmed that he had testified on direct examination that he came out of his apartment because he had received a phone call from Wright and was curious. Appellant then asked, "Isn't it true that you told the police that you went outside for some fresh air?" The State objected to this question and the trial court sustained the objection. The trial court did not rule that appellant was precluded from questioning Winters about his prior statements to the police. Moreover, appellant did not raise any objection concerning his right to confront and cross-examine Winters concerning his reason for leaving his apartment. Therefore, appellant has failed to preserve the issue for appeal. See Dewberry, 4 S.W.3d. at 752 n. 16; Briggs, 789 S.W.2d at 924; Grant, 218 S.W.3d at 229; TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). We therefore overrule appellant's second issue. Having overruled appellant's issue, we affirm the trial court's judgment.