Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 28, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00794-CR

____________

SONYA NICOLE MARIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 21st District Court

Washington County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 15,154

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of injury to a child.  On August 6, 2008, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  In a single issue, appellant alleges the trial court erred in overruling her objection to certain testimony.  We affirm.

Appellant and her child were involved in an automobile accident.  Appellant=s child was injured and later died.  A trooper with the Department of Public Safety, Ross Bates, investigated the accident.  The other driver testified that appellant=s vehicle crossed the highway and hit his truck.  Appellant was charged with intentionally or knowingly causing serious bodily injury to her daughter by driving a motor vehicle into another motor vehicle.  After pleading nolo contendere, a hearing on sentencing was held.  The State presented four witnesses, including Trooper Bates. 

In her sole issue, appellant claims the trial court erred in overruling appellant=s objections to certain testimony by Trooper Bates because the testimony was speculative and Bates was not qualified as an expert.  Appellant=s counsel objected on the ground of Acalls for speculation,@ when the State asked Bates whether the child was strapped in her car seat.  The trial court overruled this objection and Bates stated that he attended the child=s autopsy and saw no bruises on the child=s chest consistent with a shoulder strap. 

A trial court=s decision to admit evidence is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.  Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).  A trial court abuses its discretion when the decision lies outside the Azone of reasonable disagreement.@  Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d 667, 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).  Even if the trial court should not have admitted the evidence, the admission is reversible only if it affected the appellant=s substantial rights.  Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b).

Because Bates testified he did not see the child until the day after the accident, the question of whether the child was belted called for Trooper Bates to speculate; however, the question did not call for expert testimony.  Even if the question may have asked for speculation, Trooper Bates=s answer to the question was not speculationCit was based on his personal observation of the child at the autopsy.  Testimony based on personal observation is admissible.  Barnes v. State, 248 S.W.3d 217, 223 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (a police officer may offer opinion testimony based on his personal observations).  Thus, even if the question itself was objectionable, because the answer did not include objectionable testimony, it could not have influenced the jury, and the overruling of counsel=s objection was harmless.  See King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (providing that errors that do not influence the jury are harmless).

Appellant=s counsel also claims the trial court erred in overruling an objection to Bates=s testimony on the ground that Bates lacked personal knowledge and was not qualified as an expert.  There is only one objection in the record during Bates=s testimony that challenges Bates=s qualification to give a conclusion, and the trial court did not overrule this objection.  The trial court sustained this objection.  Thus, we need not address this complaint.

Finding no merit in appellant=s complaints, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

/s/        Leslie B. Yates

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Guzman, and Sullivan.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).