Arturo Petriciolet v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 8414

Appellant Arturo Petriciolet was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault of a family member and sentenced to 50 years, with a deadly-weapon finding.
In guilt phase, the complainant Leticia Gracia testified to a long history of controlling behavior, violence, and the shooting of Gracia in the face.
Appellant testified he carried a firearm and that he had no memory of the shooting due to a supposed blackout.
During punishment, Gracia and family members described ongoing fear and severe injuries including vision loss and facial trauma.
The State proffered J. Varela, a social worker, as an expert on lethality assessment to discuss risk factors in domestic-violence contexts.
The trial court admitted Varela’s testimony over objections; the court later instructed the jury regarding the basis of her conclusions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Varela’s lethality-assessment testimony was admissible as expert evidence.	Petriciolet argues the testimony was unreliable and unqualified.	State contends lethality assessment is a valid expert field and admissible.	Trial court erred in admitting the testimony.

Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (reliability standards for expert testimony; gatekeeping)
Vela v. State, 209 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (reliability framework for expert testimony; 3-prong test; relevance)
Nenno v. State, 970 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (reliability of ‘soft sciences’ testimony; less rigorous standards)
Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (three Kelly reliability factors for hard science expert testimony)
Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (utility of reliability analysis; junk science caution)
Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (future-dangerousness evidence in capital cases; admissibility standards)
Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (future dangerousness expert testimony; legitimate field of expertise)