stating that “before admitting expert testimony under Rule 702, the trial court must be satisfied that ... the witness qualifies as an expert by reason of his knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “before admitting expert testimony under Rule 702, the trial court must be satisfied that ... the witness qualifies as an expert by reason of his knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education”
- discussing factors relevant to qualifications analysis—complexity, conclusiveness, and centrality—and listing DNA profiling as an example of a complex field and frequency of a DNA match’s occurrence as an example of a conclusive expert opinion
- recognizing that expert testimony is of less importance when the covered subject matter is not complex
- finding fingerprint expert qualified in shoeprint and tire track analysis and noting jury's ability to weigh evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PRICE, J.,
concurring opinion.
I agree with the Court that the court of appeals erred in ruling on the admissibility of the expert testimony in this case without considering the appellant’s motion to strike and the evidence he adduced in cross-examination, for the reasons the Court gives in its opinion. However, rather than address that ultimate question of admissibility, as the Court goes on to do, I would remand the cause to the court of appeals to resolve that issue in the first instance. See, e.g., Lee v. State, 791 S.W.2d 141, 142 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (“In our discretionary review capacity we review ‘decisions’ of the courts of appeals.”) That court should be the first to address the merits of the appellant’s argument, taking into consideration all of the relevant evidence as determined by this Court. Because the Court does not remand the cause, I concur.