holding that during our review of voir dire testimony, "we recognize that we are faced with only a cold record, and that we should grant considerable latitude to the trial judge, who had the 13 opportunity to directly observe the demeanor of the venireperson"
How later courts described this case
- holding that during our review of voir dire testimony, "we recognize that we are faced with only a cold record, and that we should grant considerable latitude to the trial judge, who had the 13 opportunity to directly observe the demeanor of the venireperson"
- holding that appellant failed to preserve complaint that he was denied right to present defense and right to due process or course of law in violation of United States Constitution and Texas Constitution when he did not raise those objections below
- holding appellant=s failure to argue in the trial court that he was denied right to present a defense and right to due process or course of law in violation of federal and state constitutions waived those arguments on appeal
- stating that to preserve error for appellate review, complaint on appeal must comport with objection at trial, and an objection stating one legal theory may not be used to support a different legal theory on appeal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAIRD, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the resolution of appellant’s second point of error for the reasons stated in Staley v. State, 887 S.W.2d 885, 899 (Tex.Cr.App.1994) (Baird, Overstreet and Maloney, JJ., concurring). And I concur in the resolution of appellant’s fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth points of error for the reasons stated in Smith v. State, 898 S.W.2d 838, 855 (Tex.Cr.App.1995) (Baird, J., concurring). With these comments, I join only the judgment of the Court.