Somers v. State
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 753
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- EMIT drug tests were offered to show Briggs's drug use as part of defense in an intoxication manslaughter case.
- GC/MS confirmation later contradicted EMIT results for cocaine, showing only trace cocaine, below reporting threshold.
- The trial court excluded EMIT evidence; the jury convicted appellant of intoxication manslaughter.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed exclusion, holding EMIT unreliable without confirmation.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to decide EMIT reliability under Rule 702 and Kelly v. State.
- The Court held EMIT tests reliable under the first two Kelly prongs, even without confirmation, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| EMIT reliability without confirmation under Kelly | Somers: EMIT reliable on its own; literature and cases support. | State: reliability requires corroborating GC/MS; EMIT alone unreliable. | EMIT reliable under Kelly prongs 1 and 2; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. United States, 548 A.2d 35 (D.C. App. 1988) (EMIT test results presumptively reliable; admissibility aided by cross-examination and record.)
- Spence v. Farrier, 807 F.2d 753 (8th Cir. 1986) (EMIT reliability; due process concerns met with EMIT testing in prison settings.)
- Jensen v. Lick, 589 F. Supp. 35 (D.N.D. 1984) (EMIT used as screening with high accuracy; admit with caution.)
- Peranzo v. Coughlin, 675 F. Supp. 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (Double EMIT testing with high accuracy supports reliability.)
- Driver v. State, 576 So.2d 675 (Ala. Cr. App. 1991) (EMIT results deemed sufficiently reliable for disciplinary proceedings.)
- Smith v. State, 298 S.E.2d 439 (Ga. 1983) (EMIT reliability supported by trial evidence and literature.)
- Carter v. State, 706 N.E.2d 552 (Ind. 1999) (Urinalysis EMIT generally admissible; broadly accepted in scientific community.)
- Crutchfield v. Hannigan, 906 P.2d 184 (Kan. App. 1995) (Immunoassay tests like EMIT deemed reliable and admissible when similar.)
- Anderson v. McKune, 937 P.2d 16 (Kan. App. 1997) (ONTRAK/EMIT-related tests recognized as reliable in state courts.)
- Penrod v. State, 611 N.E.2d 653 (Ind. App. 2d Dist. 1993) (EMIT-like tests generally general acceptance; reliability supported.)
- People v. Nolan, 95 Cal. App. 4th 1210 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2002) (ADx compared to EMIT; both immunoassays generally accepted.)