defendant must preserve error in Texas

2024Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276, 280 (Tex. Crim.

2016Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276, 280 (Tex. Crim.

2019See, e.g., Word, 206 S.W.3d at 651–652 & n.10 (noting its agreement with the long-standing rule that a defendant must preserve error by making a timely objection to the trial court’s failure to follow the correct statutory procedures in responding to a communication by the jury); Boatwright v. State, 933 S.W.2d 309 , 310–11 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no pet.) (concluding that appellant failed to properly preserve asserted error with regard to the trial court’s alleged non-compliance with article 36.27 because appellant failed to object or file a formal bill of exception); see also T

2018See, e.g., Thomas v. State, 505 S.W.3d 916, 924 (Tex.Crim.App. 2016) (recognizing that a defendant must preserve error by making a timely objection to the manner in which the trial court responds to a jury’s request to read back testimony); Word v. State, 206 S.W.3d 646, 652 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (noting its agreement with the long-standing rule that a defendant must preserve error by making a timely objection to the trial court’s failure to follow the correct statutory procedures in responding to a jury communication); see also Carr v. State, No. 05-02-01747-CR, 2003 WL 22456355 , at *1 (Tex.A

2019See, e.g., Word, 206 S.W.3d at 651–652 & n.10 (noting its agreement with the long-standing rule that a defendant must preserve error by making a timely objection to the trial court’s failure to follow the correct statutory procedures in responding to a communication by the jury); Boatwright v. State, 933 S.W.2d 309 , 310–11 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no pet.) (concluding that appellant failed to properly preserve asserted error with regard to the trial court’s alleged non-compliance with article 36.27 because appellant failed to object or file a formal bill of exception); see also T

2018See, e.g., Thomas v. State, 505 S.W.3d 916, 924 (Tex.Crim.App. 2016) (recognizing that a defendant must preserve error by making a timely objection to the manner in which the trial court responds to a jury’s request to read back testimony); Word v. State, 206 S.W.3d 646, 652 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (noting its agreement with the long-standing rule that a defendant must preserve error by making a timely objection to the trial court’s failure to follow the correct statutory procedures in responding to a jury communication); see also Carr v. State, No. 05-02-01747-CR, 2003 WL 22456355 , at *1 (Tex.A

2023App. 2006) (explaining that a defendant must preserve error by timely objecting to the trial court’s failure to follow the correct statutory procedures in responding to a jury communication); Green v. State, 912 S.W.2d 189, 192 (Tex. Crim.

2022See United Scaffolding, Inc. v. Levine, 537 S.W.3d 463, 481 (Tex. 2017) (a defendant must preserve error by objecting when an independent theory of recovery is submitted defectively, including when an element of that theory is omitted).

2022Thus, a defendant must preserve error with respect to defensive issues, like necessity, by requesting an instruction or objecting to its omission; otherwise, he cannot complain on appeal about the trial court’s failure to include the instruction. 12 Vega v. State, 394 S.W.3d 514, 519 (Tex. Crim.

2020Tolbert v. State, 306 S.W.3d 776, 781 (Tex. Crim.

2018Deener v. State, 214 S.W.3d 522, 527 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. ref’d) (The right of confrontation is forfeitable and must be –4– preserved by a timely and specific objection at trial.).

2018See, e.g., Thomas v. State, 505 S.W.3d 916, 924 (Tex.Crim.App. 2016) (recognizing that a defendant must preserve error by making a timely objection to the manner in which the trial court responds to a jury’s request to read back testimony); Word v. State, 206 S.W.3d 646, 652 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (noting its agreement with the long-standing rule that a defendant must preserve error by making a timely objection to the trial court’s failure to follow the correct statutory procedures in responding to a jury communication); see also Carr v. State, No. 05-02-01747-CR, 2003 WL 22456355 , at *1 (Tex.A

2016App. P. 33.1(a); Karenev, 281 S.W.3d at 432-34 ; Neal, 150 S.W.3d at 175-77 ; Saldano, 70 S.W.3d at 886-87 , If a defendant asserts a constitutional or statutory complaint that would result in dismissal or quashing of the indictment and if the defendant must preserve error in the trial court as to the complaint, the defendant must move the court to set aside, quash, or dismiss the indictment “at the first opportunity” and before the beginning of trial on the indicia ment. 5 See State v. Hill, 499 S.W.3d 853, 867 , 2016 WL 5113974, at *12 (Tex. Crim.

2016App. P. 33.1(a); Karenev, 281 S.W.3d at 432-34 ; Neal, 150 S.W.3d at 175-77 ; Saldano, 70 S.W.3d at 886-87 , If a defendant asserts a constitutional or statutory complaint that would result in dismissal or quashing of the indictment and if the defendant must preserve error in the trial court as to the complaint, the defendant must move the court to set aside, quash, or dismiss the indictment “at the first opportunity” and before the beginning of trial on the indicia ment. 5 See State v. Hill, 499 S.W.3d 853, 867 , 2016 WL 5113974, at *12 (Tex. Crim.

2012See id. 2 .

1993Warren v. State, 693 S.W.2d 414, 416 (Tex.Cr.App.1985).