State v. Smith
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 934
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant State charged Smith with 2003 murder by firearm; vehicle contained collected scent samples.
- Scent lineup conducted July 2005 with three bloodhounds; several suspects including Smith identified by the dogs.
- Smith moved for discovery, production, and a Kelly hearing on scent evidence; hearing held Sept. 12, 2007; trial court denied suppression.
- Smith moved to exclude scent-lineup testimony; trial court later found it admissible; later held a non-evidentiary hearing and granted reconsideration to exclude.
- Trial court issued findings of fact criticizing Deputy Pikett’s methods and excluding Pikett’s testimony; State appealed.
- Appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion under Weatherred and related standards, upholding exclusion of the canine testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in excluding the canine handler’s testimony | State argues Winston favors admission of testimony | Smith argues evidence unreliable and properly excluded | No; court affirmed exclusion as unreliable |
| Whether canine testimony was treated as scientific evidence incorrectly | State contends Nenno/Kelly framework misapplied | Smith maintains higher standard not met; methods not reliable | No; court upheld exclusion under Nenno/Winston framework |
| Whether trial court improperly weighed credibility instead of reliability | State claims court invaded jury’s domain by credibility findings | Smith asserts trial court was gatekeeper; credibility findings support reliability ruling | No; findings supported exclusion and court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard for scientific evidence)
- Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (three-part reliability test for scientific evidence)
- Nenno v. State, 970 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (less-rigorous standard for experiential testimony)
- Winston v. State, 78 S.W.3d 522 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (scent lineup testimony analyzed under Nenno framework)
- Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (legal sufficiency of dog-scent lineup evidence; distinctions from admissibility)