Blasdell, Brandon Scott
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1604
Tex. Crim. App.2012Background
- Blasdell was convicted of aggravated robbery based solely on eyewitness identification by the victim.
- Appellant sought to admit expert testimony on weapon focus to explain identification weaknesses.
- Trial court excluded Rubenzer's weapon focus testimony for lack of case-specific fit.
- Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed; this Court granted discretionary review to assess the relevance/fit standard.
- Court held Rubenzer's testimony was relevant and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
- Context notes that Tillman governs Rule 702 relevance and that hypothetical facts can tie expert testimony to the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether weapon focus testimony fit the facts of the case | Blasdell—weapon focus relevant to identification | State—no sufficient fit to case facts | Yes; testimony was relevant and admissible on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Tillman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reliability and relevance of eyewitness identification under Rule 702; fit and hypothetical facts important)
- Ortiz v. State, 834 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (general Rule 702 principles and helpfulness standard)
- Jordan v. State, 928 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (testimony must be tied to pertinent facts to assist the trier of fact)