# Morris v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · December 7, 2011 · 361 S.W.3d 649

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5109551

## Case

- **Full name:** Daniel Ray MORRIS v. The STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** December 7, 2011
- **Citations:** 361 S.W.3d 649; 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1664; 2011 WL 6057840
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Meyers
- **Judges:** Alcala, Cochran, Hervey, Johnson, Keasler, Keller, Meyers, Price, Womack
- **Cited by:** 88 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5109551

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that grooming as a phenomenon exists, that a law enforcement official with a significant amount of experience with child sex abuse cases may be qualified to talk about it, and that it involves matters beyond the understanding of the jury and therefore is useful to t…
- holding that the phenomenon of grooming children for sexual molestation is an appropriate topic for expert testimony and noting that 10 *605 circuits and 38 states have addressed grooming, with most reaching the same conclusion
- noting that “grooming” phenomenon is “not rocket science” and does not depend on either scientific, technical, or psychological principles or methodology, or educational expertise, calculable rate of error, learned treatises, peer review, or other esoteric skill
- explaining that expert testimony regarding grooming behavior was useful to the jury and still involves matters beyond the understanding of the jury

## Opinion text

MEYERS, J.,
dissenting in which PRICE and WOMACK, JJ., joined.
The court of appeals said that under the record in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony regarding Appellant’s “grooming” of the victim. Appellant contends that the court of appeals based this determination on the purported expert’s experience, rather than whether “grooming” is a legitimate field of scientific examination. The majority disagrees and takes judicial notice that “grooming” is sufficiently established as a subject of expert testimony. Judge Cochran concurs that “grooming” is a legitimate issue for expert testimony, but says that this type of expertise is experiential and is not related to scientific reliability.
Irrespective of whether the study of “grooming” behavior is a legitimate field of expertise, I do not think Hullum was qualified to be an expert on this issue. He had no degree in any field of study involving human behavior, no specialized training in “grooming” behavior, and he did not show that the training and experience he did have enabled him to distinguish such behavior. His testimony that he believed Appellant engaged in “grooming” behaviors expressed to the jury his opinion as to Appellant’s guilt. Allowing him to testify was error and, although we did not grant Appellant’s ground for review regarding *675 harm, I would say that the error was harmful. I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5109551. Public record. Not legal advice.