concluding State was entitled to cross-examine capital-murder defendant's testifying expert concerning contents of report made by that expert's colleague, who had interviewed defendant about crime, when testifying expert relied upon other expert's report in forming his own opinion
How later courts described this case
- concluding State was entitled to cross-examine capital-murder defendant's testifying expert concerning contents of report made by that expert's colleague, who had interviewed defendant about crime, when testifying expert relied upon other expert's report in forming his own opinion
- concluding that State was entitled to cross-examine capital murder defendant's expert witness concerning contents of report made by expert’s colleague who had interviewed defendant about crime when that witness relied upon report in forming his own opinion
- concluding that an expert with extensive experience interviewing prisoners convicted of sex offenses against children could reliably testify regarding the personality profile and tendencies for recidivism of offenders who sexually victimize children
- holding evidence that Nenno, convicted of sexually assaulting and murdering a seven- year-old girl, patted the bottom of a nine-year-old girl, making her feel ―mad and sad,‖ admissible at punishment as fairly prejudicial
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by State v. Terrazas, 1999 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 93 (1999)
970 S.W.2d 549, 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), overruled on other grounds by State v. Terrazas, 4 S.W.3d 720
Overruled on other grounds by Coble v. State, 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1297 (2010)
970 S.W.2d 549, 561 (Tex.Crim.App.1998), overruled on other grounds by State v. Terrazas, 4 S.W.3d 720 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). See Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 274.
The opinion
BAIRD, Judge,
joins the judgment of the Court but dissents to the decision to publish. The decision to publish an opinion of the Court should rest on whether the opinion would contribute to the jurisprudence of this State. Because the instant opinion does not make such a contribution, I dissent to the publication thereof. See, Quinn v. State, 958 S.W.2d 395, 403 (Tex.Cr.App.1997); Kirby v. State, 883 S.W.2d 669, 672 (Tex.Cr.App.1994); *566 and, Pawson v. State, 865 S.W.2d 36 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). Overstreet, J., concurs in the result. Price, J., concurs in points of error 17 through 19, and otherwise joins the opinion of the Court.