Davis v. State

How later courts described this case

• explaining that, to preserve the argument that the trial court harmed the defendant by erroneously denying a challenge for cause, the defendant must show that (1) he asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause, (2) he used a peremptory challenge on the complained-of venire member, (3) he exhausted his peremptory strikes, (4) his request for additional strikes was denied, and (5) an objectionable juror sat on the jury
• stating that "probative value" refers to "inherent probative force of an item of evidence-that is, how strongly it serves to make more or less probable the existence of a fact of consequence to the litigation-coupled with the proponent's need for that item of evidence" and that "unfair prejudice" refers to "a tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one"
• explaining that “probative value” refers to how strongly evidence makes existence of “fact of consequence” “more or less probable” and to how much proponent needs evidence and that “unfair prejudice” refers to how likely it is that evidence might result in decision made on “improper basis,” including “an emotional one” (quoting Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870, 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007))
• stating that trial court must be satisfied that three conditions are met before admitting expert testimony under Rule 702: (1) witness is qualified as expert by reason of knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education; (2) subject matter of testimony is appropriate for expert testimony; and (3) admitting expert testimony will actually assist factfinder in deciding case

Written by the judges who cited it.