Blasdell, Brandon Scott
2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 916
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Appellant charged with aggravated robbery; identity of the assailant at issue.
- Defense offered Dr. Rubenzer to testify on weapon-focus effect; trial court excluded as irrelevant.
- Ninth Court of Appeals initially affirmed; this Court granted discretionary review on two questions.
- On remand, the court of appeals again affirmed, citing failure to prove reliability of weapon-focus testimony.
- This Court holds the weapon-focus reliability was not proven under Nenno and related standards.
- Dissent argues the trial court inadequately challenged reliability and procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rubenzer's weapon-focus testimony was reliably admissible | Blasdell II/III support reliability. | Rubenzer lacked qualifications and reliability established. | Not proven; exclusion affirmed. |
| Whether the trial court properly gatekept reliability under Nenno | Proponent need not prove every aspect; reliability shown by general acceptance. | Appellant failed to prove reliability or general acceptance of weapon-focus. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; reliability not shown. |
| Whether judicial notice or general acceptance could validate the theory | Appellant may rely on established community acceptance. | No sufficient evidence of general acceptance or admissible methodology. | No judicial notice; insufficient evidence of general acceptance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blasdell v. State, 384 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (weapon-focus reliability debated; not outcome-determinative here)
- Tillman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ( eyewitness ID theories; reliability and admissibility framework)
- Hernandez v. State, 116 S.W.3d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (judicial notice and reliability standards for soft sciences)
- Morris v. State, 361 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (judicial notice of grooming as reliable testimony)
- Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (future dangerousness testimony reliability concerns)
- Keith v. State, 782 S.W.2d 861 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (preservation of claims and review standards for cross-petitions)