# Rodgers v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 3, 2006 · 205 S.W.3d 525

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730672

## Case

- **Full name:** Warren Keith RODGERS, Appellant v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** May 3, 2006
- **Citations:** 205 S.W.3d 525; 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 852; 2006 WL 1162091
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Price
- **Judges:** Cochran, Meyers, Womack, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb, Price
- **Cited by:** 266 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/9730672

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- noting that “[t]he more dispositive [the expert testimony] is of the 11 disputed issues, the more important the expert’s qualifications are”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730672. Public record. Not legal advice.