illegally obtained and thus inadmissible under article 38.23 of the code of criminal procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.23. (Vernon Supp.2004-05). Second, Adams asserts that, because Narvaez was an agent of Officer Gallegos, her statements to Narvaez, who subsequently repeated them to Gallegos, were illegally obtained and inadmissible. Without particulars, Adams further asserts that any “other evidence” was illegally obtained and should also have been suppressed. The State responds that (1) Adams preserved error only with respect to her oral statements to Narvaez and, even so, (2) Adams’ statutory rights were not violated. A. Preservation of Error We must initially address whether Adams preserved error. Kombudo v. State, 171 S.W.3d 888 (Tex.Crim.App., 2005) (en banc) (<HOLDING>) (per cu-riam) (citations omitted). In short,
holding that reply brief is appropriate forum to rebut new material raised in appellees brief holding a party waives an argument made for the first time on reply holding that we do not address an argument raised for the first time in a litigants reply brief holding that an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived holding that a reviewing court must address an appellees reply as to preservation of error and an alternative argument in an appellees reply