ALASON JOHNNY LEWIS,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

Alason Johnny Lewis ("Appellant") appeals his conviction for the offense of aggravated assault of Grayling Jones ("Jones"). A jury found him guilty as charged and assessed his punishment at five years of imprisonment. Appellant raises a single issue contending that the trial court erred by allowing testimony of extraneous acts committed by Appellant in connection with the aggravated assault. We affirm.

The record reflects that Appellant went to his former girlfriend's place of employment looking for her ("Jordan") and Jones. After a period of verbal confrontation, Appellant began physical assaulting Jones because Jordan was talking to him. Appellant also hit Jordan in the face when she tried to call the police. Appellant then struck Jones on the head with a bottle and a trash can and then left. Appellant called Jordan several times while the police were at the scene, threatening to get her if charges against him were not dropped.

Appellant objected when the State advised that it intended to voir dire on Appellant's extraneous acts against Jordan. The trial court ruled the evidence was relevant and that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Appellant did not object when the same evidence was introduced later at trial.

Since Appellant did not object to the evidence when it was introduced, he waived his right to complain about the admission of this evidence on appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Mathis v. State, 67 S.W.3d 918, 926-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 569 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In order to preserve error, the objecting party must object each time the objectionable evidence is offered. Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ethington v. State, 819 S.W2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). By failing to object when the same evidence was offered again at trial, Appellant waived any complaint. Fuentes, 991 S.W.2d at 273; Ethington, 819 S.W2d at 858. Appellant's issue is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

JIM WORTHEN

Justice

Opinion delivered August 16, 2002.

Panel consisted of Worthen, J., and Griffith, J.

Gohmert, Jr., Louis B., Chief Justice, concurring

Since it seems vitally important that our opinions be clear and without inferences that may mislead, this concurrence became necessary. Though it is true that an objecting party must object each time objectionable evidence is offered in order to preserve error as pronounced above, to state this in a case in which the evidence may well be admissible has the potential to mislead. It is reasonable to consider that, after objecting before voir dire, the trial counsel did not object at trial because counsel knew that the evidence in question was actually admissible on a number of bases. However, this court does not reach this issue because the right to appeal the point has been waived. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Mathis v. State, 67 S.W.3d 918, 926-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 569 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

LOUIS B. GOHMERT, JR.

Chief Justice