Morris v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1664
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant was convicted of indecency with a child; the State sought to admit expert grooming testimony by Ranger Hullum.
- Hullum, a longtime Texas Ranger, testified about grooming as a technique used by child molesters; defense challenged his qualifications and reliability.
- The trial court allowed Hullum to testify as an expert under Rule 702, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The defense argued grooming is not a legitimate field of expertise and that there was no empirical backing.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to address whether grooming constitutes a legitimate field of expertise for expert testimony.
- The court ultimately held grooming to be a legitimate field of expertise within the Nenno framework and affirmed the appellate decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is grooming a legitimate field of expertise for Rule 702 testimony? | Morris argued grooming isn’t a legitimate field. | Hullum claimed grooming falls within the field of offender-behavior study. | Yes, grooming is a legitimate field. |
| Is grooming within the scope of the field of studying child-sex-offender behavior? | Morris claimed grooming falls outside scope. | Hullum described grooming as part of offender behavior. | Yes, grooming is within the scope. |
| Must grooming be empirically proven as a scientific theory before admissible? | Morris argued for empirical data and literature. | Expertise may rely on experience; empirical data not strictly required. | Reliability may rely on experience; Nenno framework supports admission. |
| Is grooming testimony useful to the jury beyond common knowledge? | Morris contends lay jurors already know grooming. | Grooming involves specialized behavior not readily apparent to laypersons. | Yes, grooming testimony remains useful to jurors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nenno v. State, 970 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (established Nenno framework for reliability of expert testimony outside hard sciences)
- Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (discussed reliability of expert testimony outside strict science)
- Hernandez v. State, 116 S.W.3d 26 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (court discussed gatekeeping and reliability in scientific evidence context)
- Kelly v. State, 321 S.W.3d 583 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) ( Rule 702 framework applied to grooming-related testimony in Texas)
- United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179 (2d Cir.2006) (admissibility of grooming-like testimony under Rule 702 in federal courts)
- Batton v. United States, 602 F.3d 1198 (6th Cir.2010) (recognition of grooming/modes of operation in expert testimony)