# Layton v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · February 4, 2009 · 280 S.W.3d 235

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812016

## Case

- **Full name:** Daniel LAYTON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** February 4, 2009
- **Citations:** 280 S.W.3d 235; 2009 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 149; 2009 WL 250080
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Womack
- **Judges:** Meyers, Womack, Keller, Price, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb, Cochran
- **Cited by:** 367 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/9812016

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- holding that error was preserved because A[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@

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812016. Public record. Not legal advice.