Timothy Leon Lueck v. State, 06-16-00164-CR

Timothy Lueck was convicted by a Fannin County jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for cutting Rudy Esquivel’s foot with a knife; jury assessed punishment at 99 years after finding enhancement allegations true.
At trial the State introduced (1) a written statement attributed to witness Bobby Pless that an officer typed (claimed as a recorded recollection) and (2) Lueck’s prison/parole records during punishment.
Lueck objected at trial: he said the Pless document was hearsay (because Officer Gentry prepared it), and he objected to the punishment records on Confrontation grounds but did not identify specific inadmissible portions; he also objected when the State commented during punishment opening that Lueck showed no remorse.
Trial court overruled many objections (sustained the silence objection and instructed jury to disregard after Lueck objected), but generally admitted the evidence and denied relief Lueck sought; Lueck did not obtain adverse rulings on some objections.
On appeal Lueck raised three issues: (1) admissibility/predicate for the recorded recollection under Tex. R. Evid. 803(5); (2) Confrontation Clause error from records admitted at punishment; and (3) State’s comment impermissibly commented on his silence. The court affirmed, finding errors not preserved for appeal.

Issue	Lueck's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Recorded recollection admissibility (803(5))	Pless couldn’t read/write and didn’t validate the statement beyond marking it; State failed to lay predicate for 803(5)	The document qualified as recorded recollection because witness acknowledged signature and officer testified about witness reading/approving the typed statement	Not preserved: trial objection was general hearsay and did not specify lack of predicate, so appellate complaint did not comport with the trial objection
Confrontation Clause challenge to punishment records	Admission of prison/parole records and embedded narratives violated Confrontation Clause	Records were admissible in punishment; defense failed to point to specific inadmissible portions when objecting	Not preserved: objections failed to identify specific inadmissible material, so issue not preserved for review
State comment on defendant’s remorse/silence	Comment that defendant showed "no remorse" was an impermissible comment on defendant’s failure to testify	State’s comment was objected to, sustained, and jury instructed to disregard	Not preserved: defense obtained a favorable ruling and did not obtain a refused request (e.g., mistrial); absent an adverse ruling, appellate complaint not preserved

Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (point of error must comport with trial objection)
Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Rule 33.1 preservation requirements and specificity)
Spearman v. State, 307 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010) (statement typed by officer can be recorded recollection if witness acknowledged signature and read it before signing)
Brown v. State, 692 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (objection must reference inadmissible material in mixed documents to preserve error)
Young v. State, 137 S.W.3d 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (pattern to preserve jury-argument error: timely objection, instruction to disregard, move for mistrial)
Bird v. State, 692 S.W.2d 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (general improper-predicate objection preserves nothing absent specificity)
Simmons v. State, 100 S.W.3d 484 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (must pursue objection to an adverse ruling to preserve jury-argument complaints)
Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (preservation of error is systemic; courts should review preservation sua sponte)