holding that when subject of expert’s testimony is “hard” scientific knowledge, basis of testimony must be grounded in accepted methods and procedures of science and must meet three criteria: (1) underlying scientific theory must be valid; (2) technique applying theory must be valid; and (3) technique must have been properly applied on occasion in question
How later courts described this case
- holding that when subject of expert’s testimony is “hard” scientific knowledge, basis of testimony must be grounded in accepted methods and procedures of science and must meet three criteria: (1) underlying scientific theory must be valid; (2) technique applying theory must be valid; and (3) technique must have been properly applied on occasion in question
- explaining that fingerprint comparison testimony is generally admissible under Rule 702 “because it is reliable and it assists the trier of fact in its task of determining whether” fingerprint is that of particular person
- holding that based on the evidence in the case and the court of criminal appeals’s “own well- established history” of accepting fingerprint evidence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence
- holding that specific incident reports written by corrections officers graphically documenting their detailed observations of the defendant's numerous disciplinary offenses were testimonial and inadmissible
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Stringer, Francis William (2010)
Russeau is also distinguishable because it was a capital case in which the jury
Distinguished by Margarito Mike Reyes v. State of Texas (2009)
Russeau is distinguishable because
Distinguished by Juan Manuel Campos v. State (2008)
State, we distinguished Russeau and held that because the
The opinion
KEASLER, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent to the majority’s resolution of points of error 16 and 16A.
The exhibits at issue in these points of error are business records. The Supreme Court specified in Crawford v. Washington that business records are not testimonial hearsay. 1 Many other courts have acknowledged this. 2 As a result, Ohio v. Roberts 3 controls. 4 And because these exhibits fall within a firmly rooted exception *888 to the hearsay rule, they do not violate the Confrontation Clause.
. 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1367 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).
. See, e.g., Rios v. Lansing, 116 Fed.Appx. 983 (10th Cir.2004); United States v. Guitierrez-Gonzales, 2004 U.S.App. LEXIS 21038 *5-6 (5th Cir.2004); United States v. Lee, 374 F.3d 637, 644 (8th Cir.2004); Johnson v. Renico, 314 F.Supp.2d 700, 707 (E.D.Mich.2004); United States v. Saner, 313 F.Supp.2d 896 , 900 n. 1 (S.D.Ind.2004); Perkins v. State, 897 So.2d 457, 464 (Ala.Crim.App.2004); People v. Cervantes, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 , 118 Cal.App.4th 162 , 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 , 782 n. 5 (2004); People v. Schrek, 2004 Colo.App. LEXIS 1712 *34 (Colo.App.2004); State v. Rivera, 268 Conn. 351 , 844 A.2d 191 , 202 n. 13 (2004); People v. Capellan, 6 Misc.3d 809 , 791 N.Y.S.2d 315 (N.Y.Crim.Ct.2004); People v. Cortes, 4 Misc.3d 575 , 781 N.Y.S.2d 401, 403 (N.Y.2004); State v. Blackstock, 165 N.C.App. 50 , 598 S.E.2d 412, 420 (2004); State v. McKinney, 2004 Ohio App. LEXIS 5033 *34 (Ohio App.2004); State v. Mack, 2004 Ore. LEXIS 792 *9 n. 5 (Ore.2004); Commonwealth v. Eichele, - A.3d -, 2004 WL 2002212 , 2004 Pa. D. & C. LEXIS 39 *11 (Pa.Commw.Ct.2004); Barela v. State, 2004 WL 2192604 at *7, 2004 Tex.App. LEXIS 8802 *17 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2004); Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296 , 601 S.E.2d 555, 570 (2004); State v. Manuel, 275 Wis.2d 146 , 685 N.W.2d 525 , 532 n. 9 (App.2004).
. 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980).
. Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1373 .