In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-24-00141-CR
KAREN KAY PHILLIPS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Smith County, Texas Trial Court No. 002-2054-23
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION
A Smith County jury found its former county clerk, Karen Kay Phillips, guilty of
interfering with public duties, a class B misdemeanor, in connection with an officer’s arrest of
her son, Derek Phillips. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.15(b). After a sentencing hearing, the
trial court sentenced Phillips to thirty days’ confinement in jail and ordered her to pay a $500.00
fine but suspended the sentence in favor of placing Phillips on community supervision for one
year.
On appeal, Phillips argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress and
contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict of guilt.1 She also
argues that a subpoenaed witness’s failure to testify violated her Confrontation Clause rights.
We find that the trial court properly denied Phillips’s suppression motion and that legally
sufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding of guilt. We also find that Phillips failed to
preserve her Confrontation Clause complaint. As a result, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. The Trial Court Properly Overruled Phillips’s Suppression Motion
Phillips filed a motion to suppress evidence “obtained as a result of an illegal warrantless
entry into her residence.” The State argues that there was no search or seizure related to
Phillips’s offense on the day of the incident, that Phillips’s cell phone was later seized pursuant
to a warrant, and that Phillips does not challenge the validity of the seizure of her cell phone,
which contained recordings of the incident. The State also argues that the exclusionary rule does
1 Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Supp.). We follow the precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals in deciding the issues presented. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 not apply because Phillips committed a new independent offense after any alleged unlawful entry
into her home. To fully appreciate Phillips’s arguments, we explain the circumstances
surrounding the officer’s warrantless entry into her home.
A. The Suppression Hearing
Evidence at the suppression hearing showed that this incident arose out of a March 28,
2023, traffic stop of Cody Voss that went awry after Phillips’s thirty-six-year-old son, Derek,
interfered with the traffic stop. A recording of the incident admitted by Phillips shows that
Jonathan Peters, a deputy with the Smith County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO), pulled Voss’s vehicle
over at night for not having working taillights. Voss and Derek, who was in his own vehicle,
pulled into Phillips’s driveway. Voss and Derek immediately exited their vehicles and began
recording the traffic stop on their cell phones as Peters exited his patrol car.
The recording shows that Voss began mistakenly arguing with Phillips that his lack of
taillights was not a crime, and Derek also began arguing with and yelling at Peters. See TEX.
TRANSP. CODE ANN. §§ 547.004, 547.322 (explaining that failure to have working taillights is a
misdemeanor offense). Voss refused to provide identification, another crime pursuant to Section
38.02 of the Texas Penal Code, and was placed in handcuffs. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 38.02 (Supp.). At that point, Derek became extremely belligerent, repeatedly interfered with
Peters’s traffic stop, threatened Peters’s job, and falsely accused Peters of kidnapping Voss.
Derek yelled multiple obscenities at Peters. The recording demonstrates Peters’s difficulty in
apprehending Voss on his own as Derek came closer to him while unhinged.
3 At the suppression hearing, Phillips did not contest those facts. She testified that she
went outside after seeing red and blue lights at her window and found Derek and Voss outside.
According to Phillips, Voss was in handcuffs, and she approached Peters, who said that Voss
failed to provide him with identification after being pulled over for malfunctioning taillights.
Phillips went inside, obtained her cell phone, and began recording the incident with her phone
from the open garage.
SCSO deputy, Riley Rugg, arrived as backup to Peters. By that time, Derek had retreated
from the driveway into the open garage but was still yelling. According to Phillips, Rugg asked
Derek “to come out” of the garage, but Derek refused because “[h]e did not want to go outside
the home.” Derek then told Rugg to come to him, and Rugg agreed.
At that point, Phillips said that both officers charged into the garage and passed her while
Derek ran into the house. Both officers pursued Derek into a bedroom to arrest him for
interfering with a traffic stop. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.15(b). Derek required the
officers to tackle him and struggle to restrain him while screaming. Derek was found guilty by a
jury of interference with a public servant and resisting arrest while inside of Phillips’s home.
Phillips’s offense resulted from her reaction to Derek’s arrest. Recordings of the incident
show that Phillips yelled at the officers to leave her house while Derek told them to get away
from him. Phillips also repeatedly refused the officers’ instructions to get back and instead
remained close to Derek while recording the incident on her cell phone. The State accused her of
poking an officer and blocking the officers’ exit from the bedroom, but Phillips testified that she
4 was getting their attention because Derek’s glasses were knocked to the floor during his arrest,
and she was concerned that Derek could not see without them because he was legally blind.
When questioned about what evidence she sought to suppress, Phillips argued that the
footage of the body cameras worn by the officers showing her reaction after they entered her
home without her permission should not be admitted into evidence. Even so, Phillips clarified
that there was no search of her residence or seizure of any item and that she was not arrested
until April 4, 2023.
After reviewing the evidence, which included the recordings taken by Phillips that were
admitted into evidence, the trial court denied Phillips’s suppression motion.
B. Standard of Review
“We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress under a bifurcated standard.”
Johnson v. State, 682 S.W.3d 638, 647 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2024, pet. ref’d) (citing Hubert v.
State, 312 S.W.3d 554, 559 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327
(Tex. Crim. App. 2000)). “A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress is
generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id. (citing Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d
43, 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Shepherd v. State, 273 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008)).
“We give almost total deference to a trial court’s determination of historical facts,
especially if those determinations turn on witness credibility or demeanor and review de novo the
trial court’s application of the law to facts not based on an evaluation of credibility and
demeanor.” Id. (citing Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)). “At a
5 suppression hearing, a trial court is the exclusive trier of fact and judge of the witnesses’
credibility.” Id. (citing Maxwell v. State, 73 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)).
“Accordingly, a trial court may choose to believe or disbelieve all or any part of a witness’s
testimony.” Id. (citing State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)). “However, a
trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts.” Id.
(citing State v. Kurtz, 152 S.W.3d 72, 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)). “Thus, a failure by a trial
court to analyze or apply the law correctly constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Id. (citing Kurtz,
152 S.W.3d at 81).
The Fourth Amendment provides, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
U.S. CONST. amend. IV. In order to legally “cross the threshold of a private residence, . . . the
State must leap two hurdles.” Parker v. State, 206 S.W.3d 593, 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
“Probable cause that points like a beacon toward the location (but not necessarily any particular
person) is the first hurdle.” Id. The court in Dansby v. State stated,
Probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists if, at the moment the arrest is made, the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the person arrested had committed or was committing an offense.
Dansby v. State, 530 S.W.3d 213, 220–21 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2017, pet. ref’d) (citing Amador v.
State, 275 S.W.3d 872, 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)). “The second hurdle is that exigent
circumstances, those which justify an immediate need to enter a residence without first obtaining
a search warrant, must also exist.” Parker, 206 S.W.3d at 597 (citing Estrada v. State, 154
S.W.3d 604, 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)). “If either probable cause or exigent circumstances 6 are not established, a warrantless entry will not pass muster under the Fourth Amendment.” Id.
In our review,
Just as an officer, in the heat of the moment, will use all facts available to him in deciding whether to enter a home without a warrant, so must [we] analyze each piece of evidence as part of the totality of information, as it relates to both the probable cause and the exigent circumstances determinations.
Id. at 601.
C. Analysis
Here, the evidence meets the first Parker factor, and Phillips does not argue otherwise.
See id. at 597. The trial court entered written findings that Derek “was approaching and yelling
at the deputy while he attempted to conduct the traffic stop,” that Phillips “also approached
Deputy Peters at [that] point,” that Derek and Phillips retreated into the garage after Rugg
arrived, and that Derek refused Rugg’s orders to come to him and instead “ran into the interior of
the residence.” As a result, the trial court found that “Rugg and Peters pursued [Derek] into the
residence and took him into custody.” Based on those facts, the trial court concluded that
officers had exigent circumstances to enter the residence, a conclusion that we examine.
The record establishes that Voss was properly detained by Peters for the defective
taillights since “[a] temporary detention is justified when a person commits a traffic violation in
an officer’s presence.” McFadden v. State, 283 S.W.3d 14, 18 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009,
no pet.) (citing Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)). Once Voss failed
to provide his identification, he committed a crime in Peters’s presence that justified his arrest.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.02. Derek committed the crime of interfering with Peters’s
public duties during Voss’s arrest. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.15. It is well-known that 7 exigent circumstances are an exception to the warrant requirement, and “hot pursuit of a fleeing
suspect” is an exigent circumstance that allows “[p]olice officers [to] enter [a] premises without
a warrant.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011); see Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141,
149 (2013). Such an action can be seen as reasonable to “prevent a suspect’s escape.” Lange v.
California, 594 U.S. 295, 301 (2021) (quoting Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 91 (1990)).
But, in Lange, the United States Supreme Court noted that, while “[a] great many
misdemeanor pursuits involve exigencies allowing warrantless entry” into a home without
permission, “whether a given one does so turns on the particular facts of the case.” Id. at 299.
Thus, for the purposes of our analysis, we assume, without deciding, that Derek’s offenses were
non-serious misdemeanors that required a warrant.
Even so, the trial court also overruled Phillips’s suppression motion on another ground.
The trial court found that “[n]o search was conducted of [Phillips] or her residence on March 28,
2023,” and that she was not arrested on that date. Instead, the trial court found that Phillips,
while inside the home, “approached the deputies as they were attempting to detain [Derek] and
then reached between the deputies and [Derek] while standing in between them and the door,”
that that provided evidence of a “new and independent offense,” and that Phillips was arrested
after warrants were obtained on April 4, 2023. Based on those facts, the trial court concluded
that “[e]vidence of a new and independent offense committed while in a residence and in the
presence of a law enforcement officer, even after an unauthorized entry into a residence, is
admissible.” We must examine this reasoning for overruling Phillips’s motion.
The Texas exclusionary rule states,
8 No evidence obtained by an officer . . . in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.23(a). As the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has
explained, the phrase “obtained in violation of the law” contained within Article 38.23
“contemplates that a crime has been committed; that evidence of that crime exists; and that
officers violate the law in attempting to obtain evidence of the previously committed crime.”
State v. Mayorga, 901 S.W.2d 943, 945–46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (emphasis added). As a
result, to violate Article 38.23, “the officers must act illegally in obtaining existing evidence” of
a prior offense. Id. at 946.
Here, even assuming the officers entered Phillips’s home illegally, Derek committed the
offense of resisting arrest while in the home, which fell within the “new crime” exception to the
Texas exclusionary rule. See State v. Iduarte, 268 S.W.3d 544, 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008);
Day v. State, 614 S.W.3d 121, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (finding that the “exclusionary rule
principles . . . do not apply to the offense of evading arrest”). In applying this exception, the
Tyler Court of Appeals has found that there is no “common law right to resist an unlawful arrest”
because “the use of self-help to prevent an unlawful arrest presents too great a threat to the safety
of individuals and society to be sanctioned.” Cooper v. State, 956 S.W.2d 95, 97–98 (Tex.
App.—Tyler 1997, pet. ref’d) (quoting Mayorga, 901 S.W.2d at 945). In explaining this
exception, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has written that, when a person resists arrest,
even where unlawful,
9 the evidence of the resistance is not obtained in violation of . . . art. 38.23 . . . and therefore, the exclusionary rule is not applicable. Excluding the evidence in a case such as this would have no other result than to stymie a police officer in carrying out his duties in the future.
Iduarte, 268 S.W.3d at 550 (quoting Mayorga, 901 S.W.2d at 946). Accordingly, the
exclusionary rule “does not . . . provide limitless protection to one who chooses to react illegally
to an unlawful act by a state agent.” Id. at 551.
We conclude that, just as Derek’s resisting arrest offense was “a subsequent independent
criminal act” occurring after the alleged unlawful entry into the home, Phillips’s offense of
interfering with Derek’s arrest was a subsequent independent criminal act that fell within the new
crime exception to the Texas exclusionary rule. Id. As a result, we find that the trial court
properly overruled Phillips’s suppression motion, and we overrule Phillips’s first point of error.
II. Legally Sufficient Evidence Supports the Jury’s Finding of Guilt
In her second point of error, Phillips argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the
jury’s verdict. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review
“When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we review all the evidence in the light
most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational factfinder could have found the
essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Lymbery v. State, 686 S.W.3d
466, 472 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2024, pet. ref’d) (citing Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 902 n.19
(Tex. Crim. App. 2010)); see Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). “The
factfinder is the ultimate authority on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to
their testimony.” Lymbery, 686 S.W.3d at 473 (citing Penagraph v. State, 623 S.W.2d 341, 343 10 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981)). “The factfinder may accept one version of the facts and
reject another or reject any of a witness’s testimony.” Id. (citing Penagraph, 623 S.W.2d at
343).
“A reviewing court must give full deference to the factfinder’s responsibility to fairly
resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from
basic facts to ultimate facts.” Id. (citing Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13). “If the record contains
conflicting inferences, we must presume that the factfinder resolved such facts in favor of the
verdict and defer to that resolution.” Id. (citing Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899 n.13; Clayton v.
State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). “In addition, we determine whether the
necessary inferences are reasonable based upon the combined and cumulative force of all the
evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Id. (citing Clayton, 235
S.W.3d at 778).
“Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing guilt, and
circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt.” Id. (quoting Rodriguez v.
State, 521 S.W.3d 822, 827 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (citing Sorrells v.
State, 343 S.W.3d 152, 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011))). “Each fact need not point directly and
independently to the appellant’s guilt, provided that the cumulative force of all the incriminating
circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction.” Id. (citing Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13).
“The factfinder may draw multiple reasonable inferences as long as each inference is supported
by the evidence presented at trial.” Id. (citing Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 15).
11 “The sufficiency of the evidence is measured against the offense as defined by a
hypothetically correct jury charge.” Johnson, 682 S.W.3d at 650 (citing Malik v. State, 953
S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). “Such a charge would include one that ‘accurately
sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the [S]tate’s
burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the [S]tate’s theories of liability, and adequately
describes the particular offense for which the defendant is tried.’” Id. (quoting Malik, 953
S.W.2d at 240).2
A person commits the offense of interference with public duties if that “person with
criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with . . . a peace officer
while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law.”
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.15(a)(1). Here, the State alleged that Phillips “did then and there
while Jonathan Peters, . . . a peace officer, was performing a duty or exercising authority
imposed or granted by law, namely attempting to detain Derek Phillips, with criminal
negligence, interrupt, disrupt, impede, or interfere with [Peters] by reaching between [Peters] and
Deputy Riley Rugg and Derek Phillips.”
B. The Evidence at Trial
Peters testified that, during Voss’s detention, Derek “was interjecting himself into the
traffic stop, convincing Mr. Voss not to provide his identifying information.” Peters said that
Derek approached him multiple times, causing him to focus on Derek instead of Voss.
2 Although Phillips raises a factual sufficiency complaint in her brief, we decline to conduct such a review since the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has determined that a legal-sufficiency standard of review is indistinguishable from a factual-sufficiency standard of review. See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). 12 According to Peters, Phillips came out of her home to ask what was happening. When Rugg
arrived on the scene, Peters and Rugg attempted to detain Derek, who ran into the house and into
a bedroom to prevent his detention. Peters testified that, because of Derek’s noncompliance,
they had to forcefully detain him.
According to Peters, they had a difficult time getting Derek out of the home because
Phillips was blocking the door. Peters said he “had to kind of push her out of the way so [he]
could get by” and tell her to get back, but Phillips refused to step away. Peters said that Phillips
“poked” his vest and reached her arm out to Rugg. Peters testified that Phillips impeded his
ability to perform his duties in detaining and arresting Derek. Peters’s testimony was
corroborated by his body-camera footage, which showed Phillips’s actions during Derek’s arrest.
The footage shows that Phillips grabbed Rugg, poked Peters, and stood between Peters and
Derek, and Peters and the bedroom doorway.
Philip Greanead, a detective with the SCSO, was assigned to investigate Phillips’s case.
Greanead testified that his review of the body-camera footage showed probable cause that
Phillips had interfered with a public servant. Messages retrieved from Phillips’s phone showed
that she agreed they were “using a high volume of language and language that is considered
insulting and offensive, which isn’t a crime.” Phillips also wrote that she “interrupt[ed]” a police
officer because she was “extremely confused as to why [she] wasn’t arrested as well.” Greanead
noticed that Rugg was having to swerve to get around Phillips and concluded that, after
reviewing the arrest footage, Phillips interfered with Derek’s detention.
13 The jury saw a photograph of Phillips’s hands between Derek and Peters. The jury was
also read an excerpt of a federal complaint filed by Phillips against Smith County, Peters, Rugg,
Greanead, and Sheriff Larry Smith, in which Phillips admitted, “The video clearly shows me
using my pointer finger on the shoulder of Jonathan Peters and poke him four times.”
Phillips testified in her defense. Initially, she admitted that, after Rugg entered the
garage, it was her intention to stop him from detaining Derek, but she immediately recanted the
statement by saying she was protecting herself because she thought Rugg was charging toward
her. Phillips said she was in shock and did not know what was happening. Phillips testified that
she stuck her arm between Derek and Peters while they were in the bedroom to get Peters’s
attention. She also claimed that she was not interfering with the arrest but was merely trying to
get the officers to return Derek’s glasses, which had fallen to the floor, because he could not see
without them. Phillips admitted that she was grabbing her son’s arm when he was “in handcuffs
and they’re leading him out of the house.” She also admitted that she was “standing in front of
the only exit” of the bedroom but claimed there was nowhere else to go.
Peters testified that Phillips impeded his ability to perform his duties in detaining and
arresting Derek. In her brief, Phillips does not contest that her actions impeded Derek’s arrest.
Instead, Phillips argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support her conviction because
(1) “there was no physical action by Phillips towards Peters,” and (2) she did not intend to
interfere with Peters’s official duties.
14 As for Phillips’s first argument, it is a defense to the offense of interference with public
duties “that the interruption, disruption, impediment, or interference alleged consisted of speech
only.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.15(d). Contrary to Phillips’s argument, the evidence
established that Phillips took physical action that impeded Peters’s arrest of Derek. The State
was required to prove in its indictment that Phillips reached between Peters, Rugg, and Derek
during the arrest. The recordings reviewed by the jury, and Phillips’s own testimony, established
that that occurred. Accordingly, the State proved the actus reus, as alleged.
Next, Phillips questions whether the State proved the mens rea element of the offense.
The State had the burden to prove that Phillips acted with “criminal negligence,” which is
defined as follows:
A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding [her] conduct or the result of [her] conduct when [s]he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint.
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 6.03(d). Therefore, the State was required to prove that Phillips ought
to have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that her actions interrupted, disrupted,
impeded, or otherwise interfered with Peters’s arrest of Derek and that Phillips’s failure to
perceive the risk was a “gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would
exercise.” Id.
In this case, Phillips’s offense occurred due to her failure to heed warnings to stay back
during the arrest. The evidence establishes that she kept getting close to the officers and Derek
15 while they were attempting to arrest him. Peters testified that he had to “kind of push” Phillips
“out of the way” and that Phillips refused to step back. The evidence also shows that Phillips
poked Peters, up to four times. Although Phillips testified that she was merely getting the
officers’ attention so that Derek’s glasses could be returned to him, the jury was free to reject
Phillips’s self-serving testimony. Peters also testified that Phillips blocked the bedroom door.
From the recorded evidence introduced of the incident, the jury was free to find that a person of
reasonable prudence would have obeyed the officer’s instructions instead of repeatedly
disregarding them. As a result, the jury was free to find that, when Phillips reached between
Peters and Derek during the arrest, she ought to have been aware of a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that her action interfered with Peters’s arrest of Derek or that Phillips’s failure
to perceive the risk was a gross deviation from the standard of care an ordinary person would
exercise. See id.; see also Segovia v. State, 543 S.W.3d 497, 500–01 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (disregarding multiple commands from a peace officer was sufficient to find
criminal negligence).
Because we find that Phillips’s conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence, we
overrule Phillips’s second point of error.
III. Phillips Did Not Preserve Her Confrontation Clause Complaint
At trial, the defense called Rugg, but he was not present. Phillips announced that Rugg
was subpoenaed, but did not appear. The State noted that the return of service for Rugg’s
subpoena showed that Rugg was in Colorado. In her last point of error on appeal, Phillips argues
that Rugg’s failure to appear for trial violated her Confrontation Clause rights.
16 Generally, to preserve a complaint for appellate review, the party must make her
complaint “to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion” that states the grounds for
the ruling sought “with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint.”
TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). Confrontation Clause complaints are subject to this general preservation
requirement. Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317, 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). A defendant’s
failure to object on Confrontation Clause grounds at trial waives a Confrontation Clause
complaint for appellate review. Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 535 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
Here, at no point did Phillips raise any Confrontation Clause complaint. Accordingly, we
conclude that Phillips’s last point of error is unpreserved, and we overrule it.
IV. Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Charles van Cleef Justice
Date Submitted: March 17, 2025 Date Decided: April 4, 2025
Do Not Publish