Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Rudy Rene Camacho v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 04-19-00579-CR
Judge: Sandee Bryan Marion
Court: Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Plaintiff's Attorney: Joe D. Gonzales
Need help finding a lawyer for representation for filing an appeal for the conviction of murder in Texas?
Call 918-582-6422. It's Free.
Virtual Offices of Solo Practice Lawyer Starting at $200 a Month
Office With MoreLaw Suites and Reduce Your Overhead
918-582-3993 - Info@MoreLaw.com
In his sole issue on appeal, Camacho argues the trial court erred by overruling his hearsay
objection to testimony regarding the contents of a text message he purportedly authored. In
response, the State argues Camacho failed to preserve his issue by timely objecting in the trial
- 2 -
court. Alternatively, the State argues that even if the issue were preserved, the evidence was not
hearsay and Camacho was not harmed by its admission.
We review the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d
622, 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). We will affirm the trial court’s decision if it was within the zone
of reasonable disagreement. Id. As a prerequisite to presenting an evidentiary complaint for
appellate review, the record must show the complaint was made to the trial court by timely
objection. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).
An objection is timely if it is made as soon as the basis for the objection becomes apparent. Dinkins,
894 S.W.2d at 355. “Therefore, if a question clearly calls for an objectionable response, a
defendant should make an objection before the witness responds. If he fails to object until after an
objectionable question has been asked and answered, and he can show no legitimate reason to
justify the delay, his objection is untimely and error is waived.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
In this case, a friend of Camacho testified she received a text message on the night of the
murder from a number belonging to “Chachi,” whom she identified as Camacho. The following
exchange between the prosecutor and the witness took place:
Q. [by the prosecutor] And this was a message sent to you by Chachi the night—shortly after that murder, correct?
Q. What does the message say?
A. “I love you. Please have my back. You don’t know who did whatever. It was a black dude.”
Q. All right. That was a little quick. Could you tell me that again? And I’m going to write it down over here.
A. I love you. Please—
- 3 -
[Camacho’s trial counsel] Your Honor . . . This is a hearsay statement. It’s not directly from Mr. Camacho. [The witness] wasn’t there personally when this message came through, and I’ll object to it as being hearsay.
The trial court overruled the objection.
Even assuming the substance of the text message was hearsay, Camacho failed to object
before the witness responded to the prosecutor’s request that she read the text message to the jury.
Therefore, because Camacho failed to object as soon as the basis for the objection became
apparent, his objection was untimely and any error is waived. See id. Camacho’s sole issue is
Outcome: Having overruled Camacho’s sole issue on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.