CROSSOVER: No-Objection Waives Rule 403/404 Complaint Even After Running Objection Is Granted

Harrison v. State, 07-26-00117-CR, August 17, 2026.

On appeal from 78th District Court, Wichita County, Texas

Synopsis

A running objection does not save a Rule 403 or 404(b) complaint when counsel later affirmatively says “No objection” to the same evidence. And where the trial court expressly conditions any later offer on a further ruling, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a) requires a renewed objection at that later offer to preserve error.

Relevance to Family Law

This is a criminal case, but its preservation lesson applies directly in Texas divorce, SAPCR, modification, enforcement, and property-division litigation. Family-law trials routinely involve difficult evidentiary calls—social-media posts, text messages, pornography, financial records, prior acts, CPS materials, extraneous conduct, and device extractions—and Harrison is a reminder that an earlier limine ruling, an initial objection, or even a running objection can be undone if counsel later says “No objection” when the same exhibit is reoffered, republished, or admitted for a different purpose. In custody cases especially, where evidence may be offered first outside the jury’s presence, then before the court, then through another witness, preservation discipline matters.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The defendant was tried on multiple sexual-offense counts arising from conduct involving his step-granddaughter. During trial, the State sought to introduce internet search history, photographs, and a video recovered from the defendant’s electronic devices. The defense objected under Texas Rules of Evidence 404(b), 403, and 702, arguing lack of relevance, unfair prejudice, improper character use, and insufficient predicate as to the forensic witness.

The trial court overruled the Rule 404(b), 403, and character-evidence objections, did not overrule the Rule 702 complaint, and granted a running objection, “especially under Rule 403.” But the evidentiary path then changed. After an off-the-record discussion, the State agreed to withhold certain exhibits—search-history and photograph exhibits—until a different predicate was laid, and the trial court expressly stated that any later offer of those exhibits before the jury would require a further bench conference and ruling.

Although those exhibits were admitted into the record outside the jury’s presence, they were not then published to the jury. The next day, when the State reoffered those same exhibits for publication to the jury, defense counsel responded: “No objection.” The exhibits were then admitted and published. On appeal, the defendant challenged the admission of that pornography-related search and image evidence under Rules 403 and 404(b).

Issues Decided

• Whether a defendant preserves a Rule 403 and Rule 404(b) complaint after receiving a running objection but later affirmatively stating “No objection” when the same exhibits are offered for publication to the jury.
• Whether preservation under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a) requires a renewed objection when the trial court expressly conditions any later offer of the evidence on a further ruling.
• Whether, if preserved, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting pornography-related search history, images, and video tied to the defendant’s relationship to the complainant.

Rules Applied

The court relied primarily on Texas preservation doctrine and ordinary evidentiary standards:

• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a): To preserve a complaint for appellate review, the party must make a timely, specific objection and obtain a ruling.
• Running-objection doctrine: A party ordinarily must object each time evidence is offered unless a running objection or an outside-the-jury hearing sufficiently carries the complaint forward.
• Garcia v. State, 6 S.W.3d 765, 767 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, pet. ref’d): When a party objects to evidence but later allows substantially the same evidence to be admitted without objection, any earlier complaint is waived.
• Thomas v. State, 408 S.W.3d 877, 885–86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013): A later “no objection” ordinarily forfeits an earlier complaint unless the record as a whole plainly shows no abandonment was intended or understood.
• Texas Rule of Evidence 403: Relevant evidence may be excluded only if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or other counterweights.
• Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b): Extraneous-act evidence is generally inadmissible for character conformity but may be admissible for other noncharacter purposes, including intent.
• Beham v. State, 559 S.W.3d 474 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018): Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
• Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641–42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006): Sets out the familiar Rule 403 balancing considerations.
• The court also noted Fort Worth authorities recognizing that pornography or search-history evidence may be highly probative where it mirrors the defendant’s relationship to the complainant and therefore bears on intent.

Application

The court treated preservation as the decisive issue. The defense had done several things correctly at the outset: it objected on specific evidentiary grounds, secured rulings, and obtained a running objection. Had the record ended there, the appellate complaint would have been in much better shape. But the record did not end there.

Instead, the parties restructured the evidentiary sequence. The State withdrew certain exhibits until another predicate could be laid, and the trial court expressly stated that any future offer of those exhibits before the jury would require a further bench conference and ruling. That mattered. In the appellate court’s view, once the trial court conditioned later use of the exhibits on a fresh ruling, preservation depended on reasserting the objection when the exhibits came back into play.

When that moment arrived, counsel did the opposite: he said “No objection.” The court regarded that statement as unequivocal. Under Garcia and Thomas, that later affirmative acceptance of the evidence forfeited the earlier Rule 403 and 404(b) complaints. The court found nothing in the record suggesting that “No objection” was being used in some limited or non-waiver sense.

The court then added an alternative merits discussion. Even if error had been preserved, the court concluded the trial court would not have abused its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence. The search terms and images were not generic adult content untethered to the case; they tracked the charged relational dynamic—sexualized content involving step relationships and teenage subject matter—and thus had substantial probative force on intent. In the court’s view, that nexus reduced the force of the unfair-prejudice argument.

Holding

The court held that the defendant forfeited his Rule 403 and 404(b) complaints by later stating “No objection” when the same exhibits were offered for publication to the jury. The earlier objections and running objection did not preserve error because the trial court had expressly conditioned any later offer on a further ruling, and no renewed objection was made at that later offer.

The court also held that, even had the complaint been preserved, the trial court would not have abused its discretion in admitting the evidence. The challenged search history, images, and related material had significant probative value because they closely paralleled the defendant’s familial relationship to the complainant and were therefore relevant beyond mere character conformity.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, Harrison is a preservation case first and an evidence case second. The immediate lesson is procedural: if the court defers, limits, reconditions, or stages admission of evidence, you must track each later offer with precision. In a bench trial, this often arises when the court reviews exhibits subject to predicate, then later admits them after additional testimony. In a jury trial—less common in family cases, but critical in property and enforcement matters—it can arise when an exhibit is admitted for the record, later published, then reused through another witness. If you say “No objection” at any of those later stages, do not assume the appellate court will treat your original objection as still alive.

This matters in several recurring family-law settings. In a custody dispute, a parent may object to sexually explicit texts, online search history, or photographs under Rules 403 and 404(b), obtain a running objection, and then later face a republished exhibit during testimony from a digital-forensics witness or investigator. In a property case, the same problem can occur with business records, tracing schedules, QuickBooks extracts, or emails initially admitted subject to authentication and later offered again after a sponsoring witness testifies. In enforcement or protective-order litigation, prior police reports, body-cam clips, prior statements, and screenshots are often handled in phases; if the court says, in substance, “bring it back when the predicate is complete,” that later point is a fresh preservation event.

Strategically, counsel should distinguish among at least three moments: the initial proffer, formal admission, and publication or substantive reuse. If the court’s ruling suggests those are separate steps, treat them as separate opportunities—and obligations—to preserve error. The safest course is to renew the objection succinctly, identify that you are relying on the previously stated grounds, and obtain a ruling tied to that renewed offer.

Checklists

Preserving Evidentiary Error After a Running Objection

• Make a timely and specific objection when the evidence is first offered.
• State every applicable ground you may want to raise on appeal, including Rule 403, Rule 404(b), hearsay, authentication, and predicate objections as appropriate.
• Obtain an express ruling.
• If you request and receive a running objection, clarify exactly what evidence and what grounds the running objection covers.
• If the court later narrows, defers, or conditions admission, assume the running objection may not carry forward automatically.
• When the evidence is reoffered, republished, or offered through a different witness, renew the objection unless the record clearly establishes that no renewal is required.
• Never say “No objection” to evidence you still intend to challenge on appeal.

Handling Conditional or Deferred Evidentiary Rulings

• Listen carefully for language such as “bring it back later,” “subject to predicate,” “we’ll revisit this,” or “approach before offering it again.”
• Ask the court to clarify whether your prior objection is deemed continuing at the later offer.
• If the court requires a future bench conference or ruling, calendar that moment mentally as a preservation trigger.
• At the later offer, state: “Same objection, Your Honor, on the previously stated Rule 403 and 404 grounds.”
• Request a ruling on the renewed objection.
• If the exhibit is admitted outside the factfinder’s presence but later published, object again to the publication if necessary.

Applying Harrison in Family-Law Trials

• For social-media evidence, object at the initial offer and again if the exhibit is later enlarged, published, or used with a sponsoring witness.
• For text-message compilations, renew objections if the court admits some pages now and others later after authentication testimony.
• For financial exhibits, reurge objections when summaries or business records are reoffered after a records custodian testifies.
• For therapist, counselor, CPS, or police materials, preserve objections at each distinct admission stage.
• In custody cases involving explicit content or alleged grooming evidence, build a clear record on Rule 403 prejudice and Rule 404(b) noncharacter use.
• In bench trials, do not assume preservation rules are relaxed simply because the judge is the factfinder.

Avoiding an Inadvertent Waiver on the Record

• Instruct all trial-team members that “No objection” is a waiver phrase unless used intentionally.
• If you mean only that you are not rearguing previously stated objections, say so expressly.
• Use language such as: “No additional objection beyond those previously stated and ruled on.”
• If opposing counsel asks to publish an already-admitted exhibit, confirm whether publication itself requires or invites a renewed objection.
• If you miss the moment and “No objection” is stated, correct the record immediately if possible and seek clarification from the court.

Family Law Crossover

The procedural rule established by Harrison is straightforward but consequential: a prior objection—even a running objection—does not survive a later affirmative “No objection” to the same evidence, and it especially does not survive where the trial court has made clear that a later offer will require a further ruling. In family-law matters, this arises whenever evidence is admitted in stages: a custody evaluator’s file offered subject to predicate, screenshots admitted for identification and later offered substantively, explicit messages first discussed in a proffer and later shown to the factfinder, or business and device records offered first through one witness and then reoffered through another. The crossover point is preservation mechanics. If the court’s process creates a second offer, family-law counsel should treat that second offer as a fresh Rule 33.1 event and renew the objection on the same grounds.

Citation

Harrison v. State, No. 07-26-00117-CR, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS ___ (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 17, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~02dae18a-0c18-41a9-986e-89b91392a8ee~~