Daniel Kenneth Meek v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00215-CR
__________________

DANIEL KENNETH MEEK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 23-374989
__________________________________________________________________

OPINION

Daniel Kenneth Meek was charged by information with the offense of assault

causing bodily injury against a family member. Meek pleaded not guilty, but a jury

found him guilty of assault causing bodily injury family violence. The trial court

made an affirmative finding of family violence. After hearing additional evidence,

the jury assessed punishment at sixty days of confinement in the county jail.

In one issue on appeal, Meek complains that he was denied his right to a fair

trial and his presumption of innocence by the State’s use of the term “victim” to refer

1
to the complainant. He complains that the use of the word “victim” rose to the level

of a constitutional error by violating his Due Process rights, which requires harmless

error review. Because Meek failed to preserve this issue for our review, we affirm.

Francisco Saavedra, an investigator assigned to the Domestic Violence

Division of the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office, testified on direct

examination regarding why domestic violence victims may fail to appear at trial,

even when served with a subpoena. The prosecutor then asked Saavedra why the

State may “not want to enforce” a subpoena with a writ of attachment and the

following exchange occurred:

[Saavedra:] Well, again, there are victims; and we try to appeal to their
senses and try to -- just let them know that, look, we’re here to advocate
for you guys, not against you, not trying to force them. It is a delicate
issue. Obviously we are cognizant to the fact that, again, they are
victims. There was a traumatic event that happened in their lives, and
that’s why we’re here.

[Defense counsel:] I’m going to object. She’s a complaining witness. It
hasn’t been ascertained if she’s the victim of a crime.

[Trial court:] Okay. So the law uses the term “victim.” I think it’s
appropriate. Your objection is overruled.

The State and its witnesses used the term “victim,” both generally and in

reference to the complainant throughout the trial. Meek made no other objection to

the use of the word “victim” during the trial.

To preserve a complaint for appeal, a party generally must make a timely,

specific objection to the alleged error and obtain a ruling. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a);
2
Pena v. State, 285 S.W.3d 459, 463-64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). A party must renew

his objection each time the alleged improper statement is made. See Fuentes v. State,

991 S.W.2d 267, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (holding appellant waived complaint

about trial court’s explanation of reasonable doubt standard during voir dire when

he failed to renew his objection after the trial court repeated its explanation of

reasonable doubt). A point of error on appeal must also match the objection made.

Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333, 339-40 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (noting that the

record did not show the trial court understood appellant’s evidentiary objections to

be a constitutional due process complaint and due process complaint was forfeited).

Consequently, “‘[a]n objection stating one legal theory [at trial] may not be used to

support a different legal theory on appeal.’” Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 918

(Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (quoting Johnson v. State, 803 S.W.2d 272, 292 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1990)) (other citations omitted).

However, the objection requirement is not absolute. See Grado v. State, 445

S.W.3d 736, 739 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Whether an objection is necessary is

determined by which of three categories the defendant’s right falls into:

• The first category of rights are those that are “widely considered so
fundamental to the proper functioning of our adjudicatory process . . .
that they cannot be forfeited . . . by inaction alone.” These are
considered “absolute rights.”

• The second category of rights is comprised of rights that are “not
forfeitable”—they cannot be surrendered by mere inaction, but are
“waivable” if the waiver is affirmatively, plainly, freely, and
3
intelligently made. The trial judge has an independent duty to
implement these rights absent any request unless there is an effective
express waiver.

• Finally, the third category of rights are “forfeitable” and must be
requested by the litigant. Many rights of the criminal defendant,
including some constitutional rights, are in this category and can be
forfeited by inaction.

Id. (alteration in original) (footnotes omitted) (quoting Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d

275, 278-80 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)). “Rule 33.1’s preservation requirements do not

apply to rights falling within the first two categories.” Id. “Barring these two narrow

exceptions, all errors—even constitutional errors—may be forfeited on appeal if an

appellant failed to object at trial.” Id.

To the extent Meek tries to raise a constitutional complaint on appeal that he

was denied a fair trial and the presumption of innocence by the use of the word

“victim” to refer to the complainant, we conclude such a complaint is forfeitable and

he has failed to preserve that complaint for our review. When the lone objection was

made, the witness was testifying about victims of domestic violence, in general, and

was not referring to the complainant as a victim. Meek’s only objection to this

testimony was that it had not yet been determined whether the complainant was a

victim of a crime. The record does not show that the trial court understood Meek’s

objection to include a constitutional due process complaint. And the record shows

that Meek failed to object each time the word “victim” was used, even when it was

used specifically with respect to the complainant. Because Meek’s complaint on
4
appeal varies from his trial objection, and because he failed to object each time the

word “victim” was used, he has forfeited his complaint. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a);

Clark, 365 S.W.3d at 339-40; Broxton, 909 S.W.2d at 918; and Fuentes, 991 S.W.2d

at 273.

We overrule Meek’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS
Justice

Submitted on January 2, 2026
Opinion Delivered March 25, 2026
Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.

5