Darcy, Christopher Earl, 488 S.W.3d 325

State investigator asked Rebecca Morris (friend of appellant) to write a note to appellant as a ruse in an unrelated jail-smuggling investigation; Morris delivered the note to the jail cook.
At trial Morris testified for the State; on cross-defense counsel produced the note and had her read it in an apparent impeachment effort.
The prosecutor initially said “No objection,” later offered the note into evidence; defense counsel expressly declined to object and the trial court admitted the note.
Redirect and subsequent testimony revealed the DA’s investigator had orchestrated the note as part of the ruse; the investigator also testified about not having searched for the letter until trial.
Appellant raised for the first time on appeal that the State’s contact via the note violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel (and due process); the court of appeals reversed based on a Sixth Amendment violation and found harm.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals, holding the claim was forfeited for failure to preserve objection at trial and that the appellate court should have addressed preservation before reversing.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether appellant forfeited his Sixth Amendment/right-to-counsel claim by failing to object at trial to admission of the investigator-orchestrated note	The State’s agent contacted appellant while he was represented, producing evidence admitted at trial that violated his right to counsel and due process	Appellant failed to preserve error by not objecting or seeking a curative instruction or mistrial when the note and related testimony were admitted	Forfeiture: appeal forfeited. Court reversed the court of appeals for failing to address preservation and held appellant forfeited the complaint by not timely objecting at trial

Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964) (establishes rule against deliberate elicitation of incriminating statements after right to counsel attaches)
Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586 (2009) (Massiah principles and admissibility for impeachment purposes)
Bekendam v. State, 441 S.W.3d 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (preservation-of-error is a systemic requirement for appellate review)
Gipson v. State, 383 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (first-tier appellate courts must address preservation)
Young v. State, 137 S.W.3d 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (instruction to disregard is usual remedy for prejudice from events that already occurred; mistrial as remedy when incurable)