Randal Wright v. State, 06-17-00108-CR

Randal Wright was convicted by a Bowie County jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14; sentence: life imprisonment and $10,000 fine.
SANE exam collected swabs; breast swab returned a mixed DNA profile from which Wright could not be excluded.
Wright filed a motion in limine to exclude DNA evidence as extraneous (arguing indictment charged only penetration of the sexual organ); the trial court denied the motion and said it would allow the DNA evidence.
At trial Wright later stated “[n]o objections” to the DNA report and also had no objection to the SANE report documenting the child’s statement that defendant “sucked” the child’s breasts.
Wright objected to (1) admitting DNA evidence, (2) the judge qualifying the child witness in front of the jury, and (3) the State’s use of leading questions on direct; the court overruled or limited these objections as described in the opinion.

Issue	State's Argument	Wright's Argument	Held
Admissibility of DNA/extraneous-offense evidence	DNA and related reports were admissible; motion in limine denial preserved as a ruling	DNA evidence was extraneous to the charged offense and should be excluded	Waived — Wright later said “no objections” to the DNA report, which constituted abandonment of earlier-preserved complaint
Court qualifying child witness before jury	Court may question competency in front of jury; no comment on credibility was made	Qualifying the child before the jury revealed the judge’s view of credibility and invaded jury province	No error — competency questioning in front of jury permissible; court made no comment on weight of evidence
Leading questions on direct examination	Leading questions are within trial court discretion when preliminary or necessary to develop testimony	State improperly led witnesses, prejudicing the defense	No reversible error — no abuse of discretion shown and Wright did not show harm from overruling objections

Harnett v. State, 38 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (motion in limine ruling generally does not preserve error)
Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (preservation of error under Tex. R. Evid. 103(b))
Stairhime v. State, 463 S.W.3d 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (later ‘no objection’ can waive earlier-preserved error depending on context)
Thomas v. State, 408 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (statement of ‘no objection’ can constitute abandonment of preserved error)
Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (leading questions on direct are within trial court discretion)
Greeno v. State, 46 S.W.3d 409 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (no rule requiring child competency hearing outside jury presence)
Reyna v. State, 797 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990) (trial court competency statement not an improper comment on weight of evidence)
Tinlin v. State, 983 S.W.2d 65 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998) (definition and treatment of leading questions)
Hernandez v. State, 643 S.W.2d 397 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (prejudice required to show abuse of discretion for leading questions)
Navajar v. State, 496 S.W.2d 61 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (similar principles on leading questions)
Rutledge v. State, 749 S.W.2d 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (overruling on other grounds cited for precedent context)
Ortega v. State, 493 S.W.2d 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (authority on evidentiary discretion)