Objection to a Testimony That Is Only Partially Inadmissible In Texas

In Auston v. State, 892 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no pet.), the State called uniformed officers, who testified that they specialized in gang and narcotics investigations. The defendant argued that the officials' uniforms prejudicially implied that appellant was guilty of unarticulated extraneous offenses. Id. The court held that the uniforms merely provided some indicia of the qualifications of these witnesses to testify as to defendant's character. Id. If a party makes a generic objection to testimony that is admissible in part and inadmissible in part, any error in its admission is not preserved for review. See Sonnier v. State, 913 S.W.2d 511, 518 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Brown v. State, 692 S.W.2d 497, 501 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Pinkney v. State, 848 S.W.2d 363, 367 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.) (standing for the proposition that a general objection to evidence that is only partially inadmissible does not preserve an objection to the inadmissible part).