# Davis v. State > Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · September 29, 2010 · 329 S.W.3d 798 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749603 ## Case - **Full name:** Irving Alvin DAVIS, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas - **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas - **Decided:** September 29, 2010 - **Citations:** 329 S.W.3d 798; 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1207; 2010 WL 3766661 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Keasler - **Judges:** Johnson, Keasler, Meyers, Price, Womack, Hervey, Holcomb, Cochran, Keller - **Cited by:** 650 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/9749603 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - 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 veni… - 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 tha… - 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 “im… - 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 e… - concluding that prosecutor’s references to appellant as a con man who was trying to con the jury with his lengthy testimony was a reasonable deduction from the evidence and an answer to argument of opposing counsel; prosecutor did not strike over the shoulders of counsel, inst… ## Opinion text KEASLER, J., concurred in the result of point of error three and otherwise joined the opinion of the Court. KELLER, P.J., concurred in the result. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749603. Public record. Not legal advice.