holding that error was preserved because “[a]fter receiving a copy of DeLarue [v. State, 102 S.W.3d 388 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d)] and hearing [a]ppellant’s argument, the trial judge should have been aware of the basis of the objection”
How later courts described this case
- holding that error was preserved because “[a]fter receiving a copy of DeLarue [v. State, 102 S.W.3d 388 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d)] and hearing [a]ppellant’s argument, the trial judge should have been aware of the basis of the objection”
- holding that State failed to show relevance of DWI defendant’s admission about taking Xanax and Valium because no expert testimony had been offered on dosage, timing of ingestion, or half-life of drugs
- holding that the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s objection and the trial court’s ruling made it clear that the trial court was aware of the basis of the defendant’s objection
- holding that error was preserved because “[a]fter receiving a copy of DeLarue and hearing [a]ppellant’s argument, the trial judge should have been aware of the basis of the objection”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Brodrick Dechone Delane AKA Broderick Shun Delane AKA Shaun Scott v. State, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 905 (2012)
Although Layton is distinguishable on this point, the principles regarding the admission of scientific testimony that the court of criminal appeals set forth in Layton apply to our review of the trial court’s admission of Officer Morrison’s testimony about the prescription medications that Morrison located in appellant’s car and other evidence regarding these medications.
The opinion
WOMACK, J.,
dissenting.
I would hold that the appellant’s statements that he had taken Valium and that it was probably not a good idea to have been drinking “on top” of it were admissible. They were not scientific evidence, and the Rule 702 gatekeeping requirements should not exclude them.
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.