# Broxton v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 4, 1995 · 909 S.W.2d 912

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775952

## Case

- **Full name:** Eugene BROXTON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 4, 1995
- **Citations:** 909 S.W.2d 912; 1995 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 95; 1995 WL 579732
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Baird
- **Judges:** Keller, Baird, Clinton, Overstreet
- **Cited by:** 698 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775952

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- holding defendant failed to preserve complaint that he was denied constitutional rights to present a defense and to due process and due course of law where trial objection was based on rules of evidence

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775952. Public record. Not legal advice.