stating that Rule 803(9) “provides an alternative avenue of admissibility for death certificates, in addition to section 191.052 of the Texas Health and Safety Code”
How later courts described this case
- stating that Rule 803(9) “provides an alternative avenue of admissibility for death certificates, in addition to section 191.052 of the Texas Health and Safety Code”
- discussing differing treatment of findings of accident or suicide as facts or opinions and listing cases
- "An autopsy report is admissible under the public-records hearsay exception of the Texas Rules of Evidence."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TERRY JENNINGS, Justice,
dissenting from denial of en banc consideration.
I respectfully dissent from the denial of en banc review of this case. I agree with the reasoning of Justice Price’s dissent from the panel opinion.
It is well-settled in Texas that trial courts have the responsibility to ensure that expert testimony is not only relevant, but “rehable.” Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713, 726 (Tex.1998). Moreover, if an expert relies upon unreliable foundation data, any opinion drawn from that data is likewise unreliable. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 714 (Tex.1997). If expert testimony is not rehable, it is not evidence. Coastal Tankships, U.S.A., Inc. v. Anderson, 87 S.W.3d 591, 595 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied).
*66 It is axiomatic that the proponent of expert testimony has the burden of showing its reliability. Here, the proponent of the expert testimony in question failed to meet that burden, and the trial court’s subsequent change of heart, no matter the cause, cannot transform what is “no evidence” into some evidence. Given the extraordinary nature of this case, en banc consideration is required. Tex.R.App.P. 41.2(c).