Brandon Scott Blasdell v. State, 420 S.W.3d 406

Appeal comes on remand from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to review exclusion of a weapon focus testimony by a forensic psychologist.
Dr. Steven Rubenzer, a forensic psychologist, testified about eyewitness identification and the weapon focus effect; the trial court excluded his weapon focus opinion but admitted other confounding-factor testimony.
Witness Katy Hadwin identified Blasdell in a lineup and in court, based on prior descriptive statements following a gunpoint robbery.
Hadwin described the robbery, including details of the gun and the robber’s appearance, with the incident lasting a little over twenty seconds.
The prior appellate decision had held the weapon focus testimony was not sufficiently tied to the facts; the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded to resolve qualification, reliability, and potential harm to Blasdell.
On remand, the trial court’s exclusion of Rubenzer’s weapon focus testimony was again scrutinized for qualification and reliability under Rule 702.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether weapon focus testimony was properly excluded	Blasdell contends Rubenzer’s testimony was relevant and fit the case.	State contends the testimony lacked sufficient reliability and factual tie to the case.	No abuse of discretion; exclusion affirmed.
Whether Rubenzer was qualified to testify about weapon focus	Blasdell argues Rubenzer’s expertise suffices for the topic and its application to the case.	State argues qualifications were limited and testimony should be restricted accordingly.	Trial court did not abuse its discretion to exclude weapon focus; reliability concerns exist.
Whether Rubenzer’s weapon focus testimony was reliable under Rule 702	Blasdell asserts the field supports weapon focus as a reliable factor affecting identification.	State asserts the record lacked sufficient explanation of principles and supporting studies to establish reliability.	Insufficient information to establish reliability; exclusion sustained.

Tillman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reliability prong of Rule 702; legitimacy of eyewitness reliability field)
Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (Reliability framework for expert testimony)
Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (quality of expert qualification standard)
Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (expert testimony framework and relevance considerations)
Rodgers v. State, 205 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (expert testimony admissibility principles)
Blasdell v. State, 384 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (weapon focus evidence; relevance and fit; remand for reliability analysis)