Wolfe, Jennifer Banner, PD-0292-15

Appellant Jennifer Wolfe, a certified in‑home childcare provider, was charged with knowingly causing serious bodily injury to a seven‑month‑old child ("Jack").
Jack was found unresponsive at Wolfe’s home, treated at Cook Children’s Hospital, and diagnosed with acute subdural hematoma, brain swelling, multilayered retinal hemorrhages, and retinoschisis; no external bruises, fractures, or grip marks were observed.
Preoperative CT showed evidence of older (chronic) subdural blood as well as new bleeding; surgeons observed a bridging‑vein avulsion during craniotomy.
State experts (pediatric neurosurgeon, pediatric ophthalmologist, child‑abuse pediatrician) testified that the injuries reflected nonaccidental abusive head trauma (AHT), requiring high‑energy impact or shaking with impact; defense expert disputed the causation and advanced alternative explanations including birth‑related or chronic subdural processes.
At bench trial Wolfe objected (Daubert/Kelly) to admission of the State’s expert testimony challenging the general reliability of AHT diagnosis based on the triad (subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhage, brain swelling); trial court admitted the evidence and convicted Wolfe; appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wolfe)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Admissibility—general reliability of AHT testimony based on the triad	The medical theory diagnosing AHT from the triad is unsettled and unreliable; expert testimony admitting that theory is junk science and should be excluded under Kelly/Rule 702	State: AHT diagnosis is accepted in relevant pediatric fields; experts are qualified and literature supports reliability; disagreement doesn’t render testimony inadmissible	Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; reasonable disagreement exists but evidence met Kelly factors and was admissible
Whether Wolfe preserved/substantively raised the subsidiary question that experts’ AHT opinions were unreliable as applied to Jack given his prior brain bleeds	Wolfe contends she properly raised and briefed that experts’ opinions were unreliable as applied to Jack’s specific medical history (chronic prior bleeds)	State contended the appellate complaint attacked only the general theory, not application to Jack	Court of Appeals declined to reach the specific‑application argument (majority); dissent would treat the specific‑application issue as fairly included and worthy of review

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (framework for admissibility of scientific expert testimony at federal level)
Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (Texas test for reliability of scientific expert testimony)
State v. Bailey, 201 S.W.3d 739 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (limits on appellate courts reversing on issues not presented below)
Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (liberal construction of appellate issues; avoid hyper‑technical defaults)
Ex parte Henderson, 384 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (habeas relief where expert recanted or science advanced undermined reliability of trial expert testimony)
Cavazos v. Smith, 132 S. Ct. 2 (2011) (Supreme Court discussion noting growing doubt in medical community about shaking‑alone mechanism for fatal infant injury)