Background
A jury convicted David Lee Harrison of two counts of sexual assault and four counts of sexual performance by a child. The complainant, Harrison’s step-granddaughter, testified that Harrison engaged in repeated sexual contact with her, sent her sexually suggestive photographs and messages, and solicited nude images after she obtained a cellphone at age sixteen.
Investigators searched Harrison’s electronic devices and recovered internet history and images involving stepparent-stepchild, step-grandparent, and teenage sexual content. Harrison initially objected under Texas Rules of Evidence 403, 404(b), and 702. After the parties reached an agreement limiting the evidence initially presented to the jury, the court required another bench conference and ruling before certain exhibits could later be offered for publication. When the State offered those exhibits the next day, Harrison stated, “No objection.” The jury convicted him on all six counts and imposed consecutive sentences ranging from fifteen to twenty years.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Harrison forfeited his challenge to the search-history and photographic exhibits because he expressly stated that he had no objection when the State later offered them for publication to the jury. Although the trial court previously had granted a running objection, its later instruction requiring a renewed conference and ruling meant Harrison had to renew his objection when the exhibits were offered again.
The court also concluded that, even if the issue had been preserved, admitting the evidence would not have been an abuse of discretion under Rule 403. The pornography-related searches closely mirrored Harrison’s step-grandparent relationship with the complainant and therefore were highly probative of intent. The State also had a substantial need for corroborating evidence because there was no medical evidence, the complainant was the only witness to the abuse, and Harrison’s defense attacked her credibility. The evidence’s probative value was not substantially outweighed by its inflammatory character.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant may forfeit an earlier evidentiary objection by later stating “No objection” when the same evidence is offered to the jury.
- A running objection does not eliminate the need to object again when the trial court expressly conditions a later offer on a renewed conference and ruling.
- Pornography or search-history evidence may be highly probative of intent in a child-sex-abuse prosecution when it closely corresponds to the defendant’s relationship with the complainant and the circumstances of the alleged offenses.
Why It Matters
The opinion underscores the importance of renewing objections after a trial court defers or conditions its ruling, even when counsel previously obtained a running objection. An unequivocal statement of “No objection” can abandon the earlier complaint and prevent appellate review.
It also illustrates how Texas courts apply Rule 403 to sexually explicit digital evidence: inflammatory content may remain admissible when a clear factual nexus connects it to the charged conduct and the prosecution needs it to corroborate a complainant whose credibility is under attack.