Christopher Michael Yager v. the State of Texas
This text of Christopher Michael Yager v. the State of Texas (Christopher Michael Yager v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-23-00010-CR
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL YAGER, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 108th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 079319-E-CR, Honorable Douglas R. Woodburn, Presiding
October 3, 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Christopher Michael Yager appeals the trial court’s judgment memorializing his
conviction for murder. His sole issue on appeal concerns whether he was denied his
Sixth Amendment right to confront a toxicologist when her testimony from a prior “hearing”
was read to the jury. The toxicologist was unavailable to testify due to a death in her
family. Appellant not only withheld objection when her testimony was so read but also
expressly acquiesced to the procedure. The denial of the right to confront a witness being
subject to preservation, Allison v. State, 666 S.W.3d 750, 756 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023); Van Anden v. State, No. 07-16-00180-CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13136, at *6 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo Dec. 9, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication), and
appellant’s having withheld objection, he waived his complaint. 1 Indeed, it can also be
said that he invited the purported error about which he complains. See Prystash v. State,
3 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (en banc) (“If a party affirmatively seeks action
by the trial court, that party cannot later contend that the action was error.”). Thus, we
overrule his sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Brian Quinn Chief Justice
Do not publish.
1 We find misplaced appellant’s reliance on Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1 (1966), as support for arguing that trial counsel cannot waive his client’s right to confront witnesses. Brookhart dealt with “whether counsel has power to enter a plea which is inconsistent with his client’s expressed desire and thereby waive his client’s constitutional right to plead not guilty and have a trial in which he can confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.” Id. at 7. Here, we do not deal with trial counsel’s entering a plea inconsistent with the wishes of his client. 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Christopher Michael Yager v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-michael-yager-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.