Second, if the State can err as asserted by appellant, we do not find that the “error” was preserved for review by an objection or otherwise. See Tex.RApp. P. 33.1. After the “order” was granted, appellant did not object to the State’s failure to act, request enforcement of the “order” by the trial court, or obtain an adverse ruling. No motion for continuance was filed. Appellant permitted the trial to conclude without requesting any further relief. Moreover, there is no showing that if the State had produced the requested items for an in camera inspection by the trial court, appellant would have been given access to items or be legally entitled to the same. In the Interest of Justice Nevertheless, appellant has cited Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) (<HOLDING>) and Thomas v. State, 837 S.W.2d 106
holding that police officers have no affirmative duty to search out favorable evidence for the defendant holding state has affirmative duty to disclose favorable and material evidence to defense holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant holding that the prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material either to guilt or to punishment