DOUGLAS RAY PAYNE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRMED Opinion filed November 3, 1989
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-88-01209-CR
............................
DOUGLAS RAY PAYNE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.................................................................
On Appeal from 195th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F88-74284-LTN
.................................................................
O P I N I O N
Before Justices Howell, Rowe and Kinkeade
Opinion By Justice Kinkeade
        Douglas Ray Payne appeals his conviction of felony theft. Following a jury trial the court assessed punishment at sixteen years' confinement. Payne argues that the trial court erred in admitting State's exhibits numbers one and five. Because the State laid the proper predicate for exhibit number one, we find the admission of State's exhibit number one proper. Because Payne failed to specifically object to the foundation laid for exhibit number five, we find the admission of State's exhibit number five proper. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
FACTS
        Kerry Baldwin testified that the Sears store located in Town East Mall employed him as a loss prevention agent. Baldwin stated that on June 17, 1988, while monitoring the store's video cameras, he observed Payne enter the store near the garden department. Baldwin further observed Payne pick up an electric fence charger and bottle of acidifier, then exit the store without making payment. As these events transpired, Baldwin notified his supervisor, Gene Hudson, and another store employee, Harry Slaton. After Payne exited the store, Baldwin left the monitoring room. As Baldwin exited the store, he observed Hudson and Slayton confront Payne whereupon Payne dropped the merchandise and fled. Baldwin and Hudson pursued and eventually apprehended Payne. Sears' loss prevention department videotaped all of Payne's actions inside the store.
        Hudson testified that upon receiving the information regarding the possible shoplifting, he observed Payne exit the store with the merchandise without paying for it. Hudson denied that he gave Payne permission to take these items without paying for them. Hudson stated the fair market value for both items together amounted to $63.98.
Admissibility of State Exhibit Number One
        In his first point of error, Payne argues that the State failed to establish a proper predicate for the introduction of the videotape depicting Payne committing the offense. Payne contends that the State's predicate offer failed to establish (1) a correct and authentic recording and (2) the manner of preservation of the recording. Payne relies solely on Roy v. State, 608 S.W.2d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) citing Edwards v. State, 551 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).
        In Edwards the court delineated the seven pronged predicate necessary to introduce sound recordings. In Roy the court applied this seven prong predicate to videotapes that had sound recordings. Payne contends the State failed to establish parts of this seven pronged predicate. Recently however, the court reduced the complexity of the predicate necessary for admissibility of a videotape when the parties offer only the video portion. In that situation, the predicate testimony need only state that the scenes depicted fairly represent the person, object, or action in question. Huffman v. State, 746 S.W.2d 212, 222 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).
        The videotape involved in the instant case contained only the visual portion of the event, not the audio. In view of the fact that Baldwin testified that the videotape fairly and accurately represented what occurred on June 17, 1988, the State met the Huffman test and we find no error in the admission of State's exhibit number one. Accordingly, we overrule Payne's first point of error.
Admissability of State Exhibit Number Five
        In his second point of error, Payne argues that the State failed to establish the proper predicate for the introduction of a document that showed no prior purchases of the stolen items on the date of the theft. Payne objected at trial that the State's predicate offer failed to meet the requirements of Texas Rule of Criminal Evidence 803(6). After Payne objected, the trial court questioned Hudson regarding exhibit number five. Payne failed to renew his objection after this examination. On appeal, Payne contends the State failed to establish: (1) Hudson, the sponsoring witness, as a proper custodian of the records or as an otherwise qualified witness; and (2) that the Sears' employee responsible for making the entry of the record of sale (provided one occurs) possessed the requisite personal knowledge needed to make that entry. Payne failed to make these specific objections at trial.
        When objecting to the admission of evidence at trial, the objection must identify what the party objects to as well as set forth grounds for the objection. Cisneros v. State, 692 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). The court requires specific objections in order to (1) inform the trial judge of the specific basis for the objection and afford him an opportunity to rule on it and (2) afford opposing counsel an opportunity to remove the objection or supply additional testimony. Zillender v. State, 557 S.W.2d 575, 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). The general rule provides that a party cannot complain on appeal to the overruling of a general objection or an imprecise specific objection. Tex. R. App. P. 52(2). An exception to the general rule exists when the surrounding circumstances make the correct ground of exclusion obvious to the judge and opposing counsel. Zillender v. State, 557 S.W.2d at 577.
        At trial Payne made a general objection, but failed to enumerate specifically the deficiencies in Hudson's testimony. Additionally, Payne failed to renew his objection after the trial court examined Hudson. Payne's actions justified both the trial court and the State in concluding that those matters inquired into by the trial court addressed Payne's concerns and resolved the matter to Payne's satisfaction. Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly allowed admission of State's exhibit number five and overrule Payne's second point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          Ed Kinkeade
                                                          Justice
 
 
DO NOT PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 90.
 
8812090F.U05
 
 
File Date[11-03-89]
File Name[881209OF]