Weatherred v. State
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | MANSFIELD, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which McCORMICK, P.J., and KELLER, HOLLAND, and KEASLER, JJ., joined. JOHNSON |
| Citation | 15 S.W.3d 540 |
| Parties | (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) JON DAVID WEATHERRED, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS NO. 291-99 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 2000 |
Page 540
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON THE STATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE NINTH COURT OF APPEALS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Page 541
O P I N I O N
MANSFIELD, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which McCORMICK, P.J., and KELLER, HOLLAND, and KEASLER, JJ., joined. JOHNSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MEYERS, PRICE,and WOMACK, JJ., joined.
The question presented is whether the Ninth Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identifications. We hold that the Court of Appeals did err.
The Relevant Facts 1
A Montgomery County grand jury indicted appellant, Jon David Weatherred, for the capital murder of William Ralph Strawn in The Woodlands in 1988. See Tex. Pen. Code 19.03(a)(2). At trial, the State's case relied in part on the testimony of two eyewitnesses who identified appellant as being near the scene of the crime at or about the time of the crime. In rebuttal to those eyewitnesses, appellant offered the testimony of Dr. Kenneth Deffenbacher, a psychologist who claimed to be an expert on the reliability (or unreliability) of eyewitness identifications.2
The trial court held a hearing, outside the presence of the jury, on the admissibility of Deffenbacher's testimony under Texas Rule of Evidence 702.3 At that hearing, Deffenbacher testified, in relevant part, that (1) he had a doctoral degree in psychology and was chairman of the department of psychology at the University of Nebraska at Omaha; (2) he had done extensive research in the field of human visual perception and memory; (3) he had written "about 35 articles, ten or twelve chapters in edited books, and a textbook" on human visual perception and memory; (4) he and other psychologists had identified, through generally-accepted experimental research, numerous "variables" affecting the reliability of eyewitness identifications; and (5) three of those variables - "photo bias," the "forgetting of a stranger's face," and the lack of a relationship between eyewitness confidence and eyewitness accuracy - were applicable to the eyewitness identifications in the instant case.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ruled Deffenbacher's testimony inadmissible. The trial court gave no explanation for its ruling. Five days later, appellant asked, and was allowed, to supplement his offer of proof with photocopies of Deffenbacher's curriculum vitae and five published articles, some by Deffenbacher and some by others, that reviewed current psychological research on the reliability of eyewitness identifications. Appellant did not, however, ask the trial court to reconsider its earlier ruling. The jury subsequently found appellant guilty as charged in the indictment. Punishment was assessed at imprisonment for life.
On direct appeal, appellant brought six points of error. In one of the points, he argued that the trial court erred in refusing to let Deffenbacher testify before the jury. The State maintained, in response, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
Page 542
in excluding Deffenbacher's testimony because "[a]ppellant failed to ... timely present sufficient evidence" of the scientific reliability of that testimony. The Ninth Court of Appeals accepted appellant's argument and rejected the State's after "finding," apparently as a matter of law, that Deffenbacher's testimony was both relevant and reliable. The court then reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial. Weatherred v. State, 985 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1999). We granted the State Prosecuting Attorney's petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in accepting appellant's argument. See Tex. R. App. Proc. 66.3(c).
Analysis
Under Rule 702, the proponent of scientific evidence must show, by clear and convincing proof, that the evidence he is proffering is sufficiently relevant and reliable to assist the jury in accurately understanding other evidence or in determining a fact in issue.4 Nenno v. State, 970 S.W.2d 549, 560-561 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Hartman v. State, 946 S.W.2d 60, 62-63 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); Jordan v. State, 928 S.W.2d 550, 553-555 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568, 572-573 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). The reliability of "soft" science evidence,5 such as was offered in the instant case, may be established by showing that (1) the field of expertise involved is a legitimate one, (2) the subject matter of the expert's testimony is within the scope of that field, and (3) the expert's testimony properly relies upon or utilizes the principles involved in that field. Nenno v. State, 970 S.W.2d at 561.
An appellate court reviewing a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence must utilize an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 527 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). In other words, the appellate court must uphold the trial court's ruling if it was within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). In addition, the appellate court must review the trial court's ruling in light of what was before the trial court at the time the ruling was made. Hoyos v. State, 982 S.W.2d 419, 422 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Hardesty v. State, 667 S.W.2d 130, 133 n. 6 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984).
When appellant proffered Deffenbacher's expert testimony to the trial court, appellant had the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the testimony was relevant and reliable and not mere "junk science." Appellant attempted to carry that considerable burden, at that critical time, by simply offering Deffenbacher's testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. State, PD–0796–10.
...11–08–00069–CR, 2010 WL 2224651, at *9 (Tex.App.-Eastland, June 3, 2010) (not designated for publication) (citing Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex.Crim.App.2000)). 4. Id. at *10. 5. Watkins, supra. 6. Id. 7. Rule 201(e) guarantees the opponent of judicial notice some opportunity......
-
Perez v. State, 03-02-00260-CR.
...be inappropriate for testing the reliability of fields of expertise outside the hard sciences. Id. at 561; see also Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). In Nenno, the court reviewed several federal cases in reaching the decision. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 10......
-
Sturgeon v. Quarterman, Civil Action No. H-07-0134.
...and (3) the expert's testimony properly relies upon or utilizes the principles involved in that field.11 Page 571 Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (citation omitted). Likewise, for a scientific theory to be considered relevant, a proponent must satisfy the followi......
-
Coastal Tankships, U.S.A., Inc. v. Anderson
...of scientific evidence may not always apply to other kinds of expert testimony. See Gammill, 972 S.W.2d at 726; Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (holding Nenno's test applies to "soft" science); Nenno, 970 S.W.2d at 561-62; see also Helena Chem., 47 S.W.3d at 499 ......
-
Evidence
...to show by clear and convincing evidence that the testimony was relevant and reliable, and not mere “junk” science. Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (where the witness failed to produce or name any of the studies, researchers, or writings on which he relied); Jordan......
-
Child sexual abuse
...to show by clear and convincing evidence that the testimony is relevant and reliable, and not mere “junk” science. Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (where the witness failed to produce or name any of the studies, researchers, or writings on which he relied); Jo......