Frank Henry Wesch, Jr. v. the State of Texas, 04-20-00127-CR

Officer Pedro Moncada stopped Wesch after observing his vehicle cross a double yellow line; Moncada detected alcohol on Wesch and observed glossy eyes; Wesch admitted drinking two glasses of wine.
Moncada administered field sobriety tests, concluded Wesch was impaired, and arrested him for DWI (first offense).
During a search of the vehicle Moncada found a dirty Q‑tip on the passenger seat and a cotton swab with green flakes in the center console; he described these items as indicative of drug use and testified that the K‑9 alerted to the console area.
Photographs of the Q‑tip and console contents and dash/body‑cam video were admitted at trial; Wesch objected to one page of a multi‑page exhibit and contested foundation for another photo, but did not object on relevance/401/402/403/404(b) grounds during direct testimony.
A jury found Wesch guilty; the court suspended a 180‑day jail sentence and placed him on two years’ community supervision. Wesch appealed arguing the drug‑paraphernalia evidence was speculative, irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and barred by Rule 404(b).
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Wesch failed to preserve his appellate complaints and noting any error was cured when defense counsel later elicited the same evidence on cross‑examination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of suspected drug‑paraphernalia evidence (Q‑tip, cotton, green flakes, photos) — relevance, Rule 403 prejudice, and Rule 404(b)	Wesch: Evidence was speculative and irrelevant under Rules 401/402; alternatively its probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403; also inadmissible under Rule 404(b).	State: Wesch failed to preserve these complaints—no timely/specific objection under Rules 401/402/403/404(b); trial objections raised different grounds (foundation); and any error was cured because defense later elicited the same evidence on cross‑examination.	Affirmed: Issue not preserved for appeal; trial objections did not comport with appellate grounds; any error cured by introduction of same evidence on cross‑examination.

Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (requires timely, specific trial objection to preserve appellate complaint)
Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (appellate complaint must comport with the trial objection)
Huerta v. State, 933 S.W.2d 648 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996) (same preservation principle)
Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (error in admission of evidence is cured where same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection)