# Somers v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 6, 2012 · 368 S.W.3d 528

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812122

## Case

- **Full name:** Aaron SOMERS, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 6, 2012
- **Citations:** 368 S.W.3d 528; 2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 753; 2012 WL 2924376
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cochran
- **Judges:** Keller, Johnson, Price, Keasler, Hervey, Cochran, Alcala
- **Cited by:** 43 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/9812122

## Opinion text

COCHRAN, J.,
concurring in which HERVEY, J., joined.
I join the majority opinion with the understanding that we are assessing only the general scientific reliability of an EMIT test. We are not addressing the question posed by Judge Meyers and Judge Johnson concerning the relevancy of this EMIT test to a disputed issue in appellant’s trial. We are not addressing whether such an unconfirmed EMIT test would be admissible when offered to show some purported connection between the results of the EMIT test and the accident victim’s cause of death. We are not addressing the ultimate admissibility of this “unconfirmed” EMIT test into evidence. And we are certainly not addressing the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding this evidence. Those are entirely distinct questions from the one that we resolve. And those questions are not before us.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812122. Public record. Not legal advice.