Glover v. State, 496 S.W.3d 812

On March 31, 2014, Houston officers stopped appellant Lawrence Glover after observing a traffic violation; Glover did not immediately pull over and drove about a mile before stopping at a gas station.
At the stop Glover was combative, cursed, raised his fists, repeatedly reached for his waistband, lunged at an officer during a search, and was arrested.
Glover was tried by jury, found guilty of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle, and sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment.
On appeal Glover argued the State violated the Michael Morton Act (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 39.14) by failing to disclose officer reports/statements and by the trial court admitting officer testimony not appearing in the offense report.
He identified specific officer testimony he claimed was undisclosed: that he looked in the rearview mirror/made eye contact, slowed then sped up, switched lanes, and stood up/ threw himself to the ground.
The court addressed whether there was a statutory disclosure violation and whether error was preserved at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State violated Michael Morton Act by failing to disclose officer reports/statements	Glover: State did not produce officer statements or record of compliance as required, denying due process and ability to present defense	State: No request for discovery under art. 39.14 was made; Act’s mandatory disclosure triggers only after a timely defendant request and mandatory disclosure of only exculpatory items absent request	Court: No violation — record contains no timely request; contested facts were not shown to be exculpatory, so no affirmative duty to produce
Whether trial court erred in admitting officer testimony not in offense report	Glover: Admission of unreported facts prejudiced his defense; disclosure rule violation or admission was improper	State: Defense made no contemporaneous objection at trial; error forfeited	Court: Error not preserved due to lack of timely specific objection; claim waived

Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (timely, specific objection generally required to preserve error for appeal)
Smith v. State, 721 S.W.2d 844 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (constitutional and statutory rights may be forfeited by failure to object)
Wright v. State, 28 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (constitutional error may be waived by failure to object)
Alexander v. State, 137 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (failure to object to due process violations waives appellate review)
Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (distinguishing systemic/fundamental rights that survive inaction)
Hull v. State, 67 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (defendant waives due process complaint not presented at trial)
Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. 2002) (legislature may create or abrogate statutory rights)