William Benjamin Watson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 85th District Court of Brazos County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-08-00150-CR WILLIAM BENJAMIN WATSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 07-01143-CRF-85 MEMORANDUM OPINION William Benjamin Watson was convicted of two counts of sexual assault of a child. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ยง 22.011 (Vernon Supp. 2008). He was sentenced to 5 years in prison on each count. The sentences were suspended and Watson was placed on community supervision. Because Watson waived any error in the admission of evidence, the trial court s judgment is affirmed. In three issues, Watson complains that the trial court erred in admitting three recorded statements made by Watson. These statements were the subject of a hearing on a motion to suppress conducted immediately prior to trial. The motion was overruled. However, when the State offered each statement into evidence during the trial, Watson affirmatively stated that he had no objection to the admission of each statement. When a pretrial motion to suppress evidence is overruled, a defendant need not object subsequently at trial in order to preserve error. Moraguez v. State, 701 S.W.2d 902, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442, 449 (Tex. App. Austin 2008, pet. ref d). However, when the defendant affirmatively asserts during trial that he has no objection to the admission of the complained-of evidence, he waives any error in the admission of the evidence. Moody v. State, 827 S.W.2d 875, 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Moraguez, 701 S.W.2d at 904; Klapesky, 256 S.W.3d at 449. Because Watson stated affirmatively that he had no objection to the complainedof statements, he waived any error in the admission of those statements. Accordingly, issues one, two, and three are overruled. The trial court s judgments are affirmed. TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed October 7, 2009 Do not publish [CR25] Watson v. State Page 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
