How do you preserve error when objecting to evidence in a Texas trial?
This question has been addressed in 3 Texas court opinions:
Christopher Michael Green v. The State of Texas
COA05 — February 5, 2026
In Green v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals examined whether a trial court erred by admitting SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) records of an unavailable victim during a criminal punishment phase. The defendant argued that admitting graphic forensic evidence without the victim's testimony was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 because he could not cross-examine the witness. The court analyzed the records' high probative value regarding the defendant's character and pattern of behavior, especially since the forensic evidence was linked to the defendant via DNA. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, ruling that forensic medical records are admissible to show a pattern of conduct even without live testimony from the victim.
Litigation Takeaway
“In high-conflict custody or termination cases, practitioners can leverage forensic 'paper trails'—like SANE or medical records—to prove a history of violence or bad character, even if the victims of those acts are unavailable or unwilling to testify in court.”
Lane Ivy v. Sandy Kay Butler
COA07 — January 28, 2026
In a civil bench trial involving the death of Charlesetta Telford, the plaintiff introduced a recorded confession from one defendant that heavily implicated a co-defendant, Billy Glenn Ivy, Jr. Although the recording was admissible against the confessing party, Ivy's counsel only raised 'blanket' hearsay objections rather than asking the court to limit the evidence's scope. The Amarillo Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Evidence 105(b)(1), concluding that the mandatory requirement to request a limiting instruction or restriction applies even when a jury is not present. The court held that by failing to specifically request that the judge restrict the evidence to its proper purpose, the objecting party waived the right to complain about the evidence being considered against them on appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
“Never rely on the 'presumption' that a judge in a bench trial will only consider evidence for its proper purpose. If evidence is admissible for one narrow reason but inadmissible for another, you must affirmatively request a Rule 105 restriction on the record; otherwise, a 'blanket objection' will fail to preserve your error for appeal.”
In the Interest of A.J., A Child
COA12 — February 18, 2026
The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict appointing paternal grandparents as joint managing conservators with the right to designate the child's primary residence. The parents challenged the grandparents' standing to intervene and the trial court's admission of third-party psychological evaluations. The court held that the standing issue was previously settled in a mandamus proceeding and could not be relitigated. Furthermore, the court determined that even if the psychological reports were improperly admitted as hearsay, the error was harmless because the parents failed to object to subsequent testimony discussing the contents of those reports, making the evidence cumulative.
Litigation Takeaway
“Winning an evidentiary objection to a document is not enough if you allow witnesses to testify about that document's contents without further objection. To avoid the 'cumulative evidence' trap, practitioners must secure a running objection to ensure that similar testimony doesn't waive the initial error on appeal.”