Henderson v. State

321 оf Criminal We hold Texas Code 604. HENDERSON, Appellant, Ann Teresa

Procedure, broad au- grants Article 42.12 modify thority to the trial court v. 22(c) probation, conditions of and section Texas, trial court to have a of State. require does not STATE extending a defendant’s hearing before No. 2-99-528-CR. Thus, appel- term. community supervision community supervi- period lant’s initial Texas, Appeals Court and the lawfully sion was extended State’s Fort Worth. properly Ap- motion to revoke was filed. 7, March 2002. first of error is overruled. pellant’s point 23, 2002. May Overruled Rehearing two. As have decided Issue сommunity appellant’s period initial extended, supervision lawfully of error. In point

must address his second two, appellant issue contends the trial jurisdiction court lacked to revoke his de adjudication capias ap ferred because no pears Appellant the record. and the jurisdic agree that a trial court has State tion when the State’s motion to revoke is

properly expiration filed before the of the

probationary period capias when a expiration proba issued before State, tionary period. Brecheisen v. (Tex.Crim.App.1999). S.W.3d the initial clerk’s record thаt was While not contain a appeal capias, filed on did supplemental record was filed and it shows capias was issued on June 2000. not ex- Appellant’s probationary period did Thus, pire capias until March 2001. appel- expiration was issued before probationary period. Appellant’s lant’s point second of error is overruled. judgment affirm the of the trial We court. Worth, Escobar, Ap- for Fort J.

David pellant. D.A., M. Mal- Charles Curry,

Tim Crim. Appel- lín, D.A. and Chief Asst. Crim. Windsor, Mon- Div., Ann David late Debra Worth, D.A.’s, for Fort ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‍Asst. Crim. tague, Appellee. JJ.; DAUPHINOT, DAY and

Panel B: RICHARDS, L. J. and DAVID

OPINION RICHARDS, Justice

DAVID L. (Assigned). of the offense was convicted

Appellant in connection with capital murder three-year-old stepson, John death of her injury causing the The head Henderson. the child at a time when death occurred residence. appellant’s in care at their ap- at trial concerned disputed issues the manner and means pellant’s intent and the death of death. The State waived and, convic- following appellant’s penalty tion, imprison- to life she was sentenced ment. (1) appeal: points presented

Foot are admitting in testimo- the trial court erred concerning Donahue ny of Dr. David inju- necessary to cause the victim’s forces (2) admitting the trial cоurt erred ry; con- Dr. Howard Kefler necessary to cause cerning the forces (3) wrongly trial court injury; victim’s provided to a written statement excluded father; by the victim’s police authorities (4) failing trial court erred motion for directed ver- appellant’s grant affirm. dict. willWe the testi- challenge two Points one and Dr. How- David Donahue and mony of Dr. necessary the forces concerning Kefler ard victim’s injury resulting cause the specific complaints Appellant’s death. doctors’ reliability of the challenge the 324 579, 591-92, 113

opinions causing that the force the child’s 509 2795- U.S. S.Ct. (1993) injury massive brain and death was not (stating 125 L.Ed.2d 469 factors appellant’s consistent with assertion that helpful are scienti would whether was the accidental of a result tested, fic method can be or has been short fall onto bedroom dresser after she subjected whether it has been to peer re struck the child in the mouth. publication, view and what the known or is, potential rate of error and whether it Reviewing courts will not disturb general acceptance has attained the trial court’s that a wit determination field). ness is or not qualified expert as an unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. The role of the trial court State, (Tex. Morales v. S.W.3d qualifying experts is to ensure “that those Crim.App.2000). Consequently, the court purport experts truly who to be have ex will not conclude the trial court has abused pertise concerning the actual about if, circumstances, in its discretion the same they offering are an Bro opinion.” differently it would have ruled or if the (Tex. Heise, 148, v. ders 924 S.W.2d 152 trial in judg court committed a mere error 1996). offering experts the tes party ment. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & v.Co. timony the to bears burden show the wit Robinson, (Tex.1995). 549, 923 S.W.2d 558 possessеs knowledge to “special ness as Instead, gauge we are to an abuse of dis very proposes the matter on which he to by determining cretion whether the trial give opinion.” an Id. at 152-53. any guid court acted without reference to ing principles. State, 549, rules or Id. In Nenno v. 970 560 S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App.1998), overruled on other 702, evidentiary “[i]f Under rule 720, grounds by State v. 4 Terrazas S.W.3d scientific, technical, specialized or other 727 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), the Texas Court knowledge will assist the trier fact to of of the Appeals acknowledged Criminal understand the evidence or to determine a “flеxible,” Daubert and noted inquiry is issue, fact in qualified a witness as an general agreement among that there is the skill, expert by knowledge, experience, (1) federal courts that: the gatekeeping training, may testify education thereto function trial the relia- judges regarding ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‍opinion the form of an or otherwise.” bility applies to all expert evidence imposes Tex.R. Evid. 702. This rule a (2) testimony; and expert forms of special gatekeeping obligation on the trial necessarily apply Daubert factors “do not reliability expert court to ensure the of аll hard outside the science context.” Id. at testimony. Gammill v. Jack Williams emphasized 561. The court that “methods Chevrolet, Inc., 713, 972 722-26 S.W.2d reliability vary, proving depending will (Tex.1998). judge The trial fulfills this expertise” recog- the field of and upon obligation by determining precondi as a nized: (1) admissibility tion that: the putative to (2) expert qualified expert; study is as an fields of aside addressing When sciences, as the expert’s testimony has reliable basis from hard such so- knowledge experience and of the rele cial sciences or fields that are based (3) training and discipline; testimony primarily uрon experience vant and is method, Robinson, A Kel- opposed relevant. 923 S.W.2d at 556. the scientific reliability applies but pertinent inquiry ly’s requirement valid connection to the hard necessary admissibility. rigor with less than to the sciences. precondition Pharms., Inc., validity “theory” of a speak v. Merrell Dow To See Daubert

325 “technique” in Dr. Kefler admitted that may Similarly, these fields be while roughly somewhat forensic accurate but mislead- he was not trained forensics or ing. regular of his pathology, part it was practice make determinations as to Id. Also, of injuries. causе The court also noted that Daubert predicated both doctors was shown apply “factors” to hard science but not to upon principles utilize the involved and to expert testimony involving clinical medi explained that their their fields. Both cine. Id. at 561 v. (citing United States tests, opinions were based various (6th Jones, 1147, 1156, 1158 Cir.), F.3d 107 examinations, given and treatments denied, 1127, 2527, cert. 521 117 S.Ct. U.S. victim. Finally, both indicated (1997) L.Ed.2d 1027 v. 138 Freeman in the referred to studies literature (4th Corp., 118 Case F.3d n. 6 in reaching field their conclusions. Given Cir.1997), denied, cert. 522 U.S. the trial predicates, the above conclude (1998)). S.Ct. 139 L.Ed.2d 676 Con ruling court did not abuse its discretion Freeman, cerning court ruled that their testimony was admissible. Points expert experience where an relies on his one and are overruled. two particular and not a method conclusions, ology to reach his the Daubert three, appellant In point complains Nenno, “analysis” is inappropriate. See excluding trial court’s decision at 970 S.W.2d 561. following provided written statement We believe the doctors’ testimo husband, by her police authorities William ny here falls into clinical medicine Henderson: category, оpposed to a “hard” science Henderson, wife, A. My Teresa and The category. testimony that established myself three discipline have our [sic] Dr. Donahue is pediatric a board-certified followingway. children in the neurosurgeon. Similarly, Dr. Kelfer is usually We start with time out. The pediatric board certified in and neurology time out on the depended duration of general pediatrics. Their at the in The way the child reacted time out. hearing Daubert supports the con State’s in you rule that do not move or talk tention that matter of their talked, time If a child did out. mоve or testimony was within both doctors’ fields longer. we them time out either left of practice. proven Both were to have persisted, If the told to they child were dealing and experience specifi spanked turn and were either on around cally injuries with head to children and slapped the butt on cheek or or determining both testified that what severely. mouth. A belt was Never an injury regular caused was a part only sometimes used but on the butt. fact, practice. their In Dr. Kefler testified Never the head. that he was by hospital person called back, If were child talks a nel to evaluate the child’s brain damage slapped the cheek mouth and instant case attempt in an to determine again severely. a lie was the Telling not Dr. disputed its cause. Donahue defense same. such,an counsel’s characterization of en “forensic,” at explaining problems eating deavor as that deter some Jake food mining intentionally the cause of was a meals. He would hold part training, practice, point, in his hours. At this experience, his mouth for part a vital medicine. him to and swallow. clinical would tеll chew If he didn’t get slap he would no means of acquiring personal knowl- cheek usually and then he would stated; swal- edge of the matter times, A low. few get light he would (B) A statement concerning the fore- slap on leg. his None of this was ever matters, also, going and death of anoth- done for amusement or intentional and person, er if the declarant was related to never severe. blood, the other adoption, or mar- pottie His training was light- handled riage intimately or was associated with ly. He get would time out if he wet his family likely other’s as to have pants and that was it. accurate concerning the information A majority, about 95% of the spanking matter declared. was done hand. A only belt was used 804(b)(3) Evid. Tex.R. in severe injure cases and never to rule, identical to its child. counterpart, federal assump rests on the In I closing[,] say would like to tion that the type specified by of declarant our disicpline policy good [sic] was not a statement, the rule will not a make a such But, policy. never, especially my as a marriage, date of a or the existence of wife, abused our Although children. I ceremony, trustworthy. unless it is Sеe present was not at the time of the of- Carvalho, (4th U.S. v. 742 F.2d fense, witness, I god believe as as my Cir.1984). Here, provided declarant that what happen [sic] was an accident far different information than the matters tragic with a In ending. day one I have Summarized, set forth the rule. son, my lost the support my family, statement concerned methods of child dis likely, my most other I son. But cipline practiced the home and asserted by my stand wife always say and will the “fact” that his wife would not inten that she intentionally would never hurt tionally have caused the death of their son. injure or kill any or child. I bear no 804(b)(3) apply Rule does not where the grudge pray for release. matter asserted the declarant involves preceding points, the As nontrustworthy “facts” such as state of cannot overturn ruling the trial court’s ab (holding mind. id. exception inapplica See sent a holding that the trial court abused ble where declaration went to issue con State, its discretion. Bolden v. 967 S.W.2d cerning couple’s marriage). motive for (Tex.App.-Fort 898 pet. Worth Point three is overruled. d). ref Appellant contends the trial court’s ruling constituted an abuse of discretion four, In' pоint appellant contends qualified because the statement as an ex denying the trial court erred in her motion ception to hearsay the rule-a statement of specific for instructed verdict. Her com family history concerning the death of his plaint sup concerns the lack of evidence provides: son. The rule indictment, porting paragraph six of the (3) Family Statement Personal or knowingly that alleged which the state she History by causing caused the victim’s death him

(A) A statement de- concerning object grand the to strike an to the unknown birth, clarant’s оwn adoption, marriage, jury. alleged indictment alternative The divorce, legitimacy, relationship in separate para manners and means blood, adoption, marriage, ancestry, graphs. In one al paragraph, state or other fact personal leged appellant similar or fami- caused the child to strike ly history even though object jury. the declarant had an unknown the grand Ap- to Justice, DAUPHINOT, LEE ANN on a dh’ected verdict moved for pellant dissenting. prove to had failed grounds State unknown to object the child struck was major- to the respеctfully dissent I must jury. grand did not the trial court holding that ity’s Dr. Dona- allowing discretion abuse its trial court complaint A that the “concerning testify and Dr. Kefler hue directed overruling a motion for erred cause the necessary to the forces upon legal actually an attack verdict is These victim’s death.” resulting in the sufficiency of the evidence. See McDuff v. testimony their not confine doctors did (Tex.Crim.App.), State, 607, 613 989 S.W.2d from gleaned solely to their observations denied, 844, 118 S.Ct. 522 U.S. rt. tests, examinations, ce the “various studying (1997). Here, 125,139 alterna L.Ed.2d 75 victim”; rath- to the given treatments were ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‍of manner аnd means tive theories re- er, speculation freely into they ranged however, jury; appel submitted to culpable Appellant’s garding causation only appeal concerns challenge lant’s state. mental not Appellant those theories. does one of correctly points out majority The under contend the evidence is insufficient in qualifying the trial court role of “[t]he the other theories submitted. Because pur- those who is to ensure ‘that experts sufficiency of required uphold are truly expertise have port experts to be if thе is sufficient to the evidence evidence actual about concerning the any allegations convict under sub ” opinion’ by requiring an offering are mitted, id. point four is overruled. See offering expert’s party possesses “special that the witness show Moreover, point appellant’s very matter on which knowledge as to the showing A facie prima fails on its merits. ma- an give opinion.” he proposes weapon is made that the was unknown the admission of both jority justifies then does grand jury where the evidence that, be- testimony on the basis doctors’ type weapon not establish the used. clinical testimony “falls into the cause their (Tex.Crim.App.1993), State, v. Hicks 860 S.W.2d to a ‘hard’ category, opposed medicine denied, t. 512 U.S. cer “flexible” to category,” we must be science 129 L.Ed.2d 848 S.Ct. expertise requiring no actual point the of (1994). Here, there was some circumstan in the expert of witnesses part the child’s head tial evidence that was offering they are area about specific something other than the against struck opinions. their many un dresser because the dresser any deny having only did Dr. Kefler Not figurines fragile and other items disturbed in the field of forensic training or expertise following injury. the More place still testified specifically he also pathology, but over, injuries of given large number jury that he presence outside the face, the medical examiner child’s necessary degree of force did not know the likely injury that it was opined stated, “I injuries. child’s He to cause the child’s by multiple blows to the caused don’t, my expertise that area of nor is head. Point four is overruled. pathology physics or forensic know judgment trial court’s is affirmed. cause this exact sort what would Indеed, acknowledged Dr. Kefler injury.” type of force DAUPHINOT, quantify could not dissenting that he J. filed a inju- required to cause that would be opinion. case, ries sustained in this stating, bathtub, “That is that thing, you sort of if my not of expertise area as a phy- clinical instrument, any didn’t have sort of sician.” he testified While that there were just a blow to the using blunt head all of dealing studies with particular subject, this you the force have. they he did not know what Despite were. Dr. Kefler also testified that such “brute this evidence concerning qualifications, his force” generated could be a fall from a however, permitted Dr. Kefler was to tes- forty-story building being hit on the

tify before jury to the degree of force head with a baseball bat. necessary to inflict the injury suffered the child. Specifically, Dr. Kefler testified Dr. Donahue pres- testified outside the in pertinent part as follows: jury ence of the that “strong feelings his are different inju-

[T]here kinds of head and strong opinions are based on the liter- ries that children sustain. There is a ature the experience of others who just child who can fall or hit a soccer have seen more than I type of this ball and have a little loss of the con- Yet, injury.” he could cite to no such inju- sciousness and that wouldn’t cause studies or literatüre. Dr. Donahue also ry like this. expertise testified that he had no in the Just an injury pop pathology area of forensic the head and no the— you because upset any are with him wouldn’t kind forensic medicine. He stat- injury ed, cause an like this. I certainly “So don’t claim to be a expert, forensic and I’m not even sure force, This is more what I call brute is, what I certainly forensics but don’t something said, I that-like it wouldn’t want to be a Further- just neuropathologist.” floor, be a fall on carpeted to a fall more, Dr. candidly acknowledged Donahue off a against bed or a dresser. that his conclusions were derived from know, You it’s sort of an injury that speculation. He that parents testified you see coming when the child is in after explanation want an' of what made their wreck, a car when there has been all sick, clinician, pa- children so “a when a head, sorts of forces hit the from the speculates tient hospital, comes into hitting against the dashboard. things million but when he is finished-or fall, If it’s it would abe fall have speculating, when she is finished story from a building. several I have come down with an opinion.” seen children who have fallen off a bal- cony from up several stories that had an Nevertheless, permit- Dr. Donahue was injury like this. testify jury ted to regarding before the it, If person inflicted it’s not the sort “settings which this would occur.” thing anybody just would do to Dr. Donahue described three such set- give physical a little punishment to a (1) distance, tings: high “falls from a i.e. thing. child. It’s more of a violent (2) stories”; several “children involved accidents”;

high velocity motor vehicle and It’s—it wouldn’t be the sort of-sort of (3) injured who have been non- “children physical mild punishment that someone or children accidentally who have been might give go and then have the child dashed a against wall or otherwise brutal- stand in the corner for 15 minutes. ized.” Dr. Donahue testified that such know, you injuries

It I imagine by would can could be caused a fall of at least be— someone a picking up by by being child the ankles ten feet or child’s head run the whamming against and them the side of by traveling over the tire of a car five testify to causa- they qualified were not these also stated that miles an hour. He its support To suf- mental state. injuries” could be tion and traumatic “severe court of feet and relies on the by majority who held by holding, fered a child is the that the dropped a or forceful- against wall observation appeals’ thrown criminal object. In Dr. ac- particular, a hard flexible to ly against must be inquiry Daubert “A following example: gave the study Donahue outside fields of count for those flies out of a car is in a car and child who A flexible sciences. “hard” the so-called they are a accident and they like are in car however, all not, with dispense should test flies and the infant seat in an infаnt seat whether a wit- determining for standards the up against flies out of the car and testify expert an as qualified ness is be- whether a human wall.” asked When testimony, particu- reliability of such the a amount ing generate could sufficient here, where, “ex- proffered larly type cause the force with one blow to deny having any expertise witnesses pert” case, in this by the child suffered they will subject matter about in the person giv- “If the responded, the doctor testify. Hogan they Hulk was ing blow that, in name of flexibili- is My fear when they fast as could running a[s] were four different stan- ty, develoрing arewe had punch they delivered testimo- expert the admission of dards for start, ten-yard yes.” about a set of single now have a ny. Although ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‍we rule, a threshold the old once Under civil and crimi- evidentiary rules for both established, any expertise level of was trials, applying these appear nal to be quali- weaknesses or defects a witness’s is of- differently depending on who rules weight to the of his testimo- fications went case. in a fering particular the evidence jury admissibility. The was ny, not to its applied of evidence should The rules ability to determine credited with the is the evidence the same manner whether testimony was wor- “expert’s” whether defendant, State, a criminal by offered credit- thy jury longer of belief. The is no a civil defendant. When plaintiff, a civil judgment to make this ed with sufficient of the rules is determined application Rather, judge the trial is determination. the evi- offering opposing party deciding in advance gatekeeper, now the dence, from the departure risk a fearful expert worthy is purported whether a rule of law. that I am not aware jury’s confidence. into expanded has been judge’s а Crossroads, Inc., this court In Pack v. It expertise. areas of scientific or other did not demonstrate plaintiffs that the held however, not, an intermedi- the function of nurse, Alford, particu- a Dolores the rules of appellate ate court rewrite home nursing the field expertise lar duty is criticize them. Our evidence or to therefore, and, trial of care standards rules and try to understand the simply finding unqualified her did not err in court whether a trial court abused to determine malprac- standards testify to those evidentiary rulings discretion its its nursing home.1 We against tice action matters. testimony on this Alford’s held that the fact that despite excluded us, properly majority before

In the case now and a nursing diploma held both Alford properly ignored that the trial court holds trial, that she explained Alford Ph.D.2 At testimony that uncontroverted the doctors’ 492, at 506. (Tex.App.-Fort 2. Id. 1. 53 S.W.3d 505-07 denied). pet. Worth had been a staff nurse and a clinical in- shift work in nursing home a day-to basis, structor in a day licensed vocátional pro- nurse and had not delivered health gram, the education director of care to Seaton someone other than a relative sincе reasons, Nursing, School of professor an assistant 1991.8 For these we concluded of nursing plaintiffs at Texas that the University Women’s did not meet their bur Houston, currently and was den to establish that possessed spe a consultant Alford cific expertise with the Department of of the stan Justice to deter- troubled, dards of why nursing mine care for a home-. government-run nurs- ing homes are unable to regulations.3 meet In Yard Daimlerchrysler v. Corp., Alford had also a fellowship received in the held that a medical pathologist was not Academy American of Nursing, the Honor- qualified expert competent as an to testify ary Nurse Practice Award from the Amer- whether a driver’s skull fracture was Association, ican Nurses and had been caused the failure of his vehicle’s air named a distinguished alumnus at Louisi- bag deploy.9 pointed We out that the University ana State University and the Friedlander, pathologist, Dr. indicated in Texas.4 Alford testified that her experi- deposition testimony his that he was not consulting ence included nursing homes on “completely comfortable” with exper- problems resident teaching aides tise in this area.10 Friedlander admitted additiоn, nursing homes.5 In Alford stated that he did not know what types of forces she had written many published required were particular cause this frac- works about nursing general care and in ture try and that he did not to calculate nursing specifically homes and that she what generated forces would be with and had worked with in nursing nurses homes without an air bag “because that would be to assess the conditions of residents and pretentious and that getting would be out develop plan care to meet their needs.6 of the good area that I am—that I’m at. I’ll So leave these to the biomеchanics

After acknowledging this people engineering people.”11 and ... experience, pointed out that Alford In holding that the trial court did not err fully explained never her. responsibilities by concluding that Friedlander was not with the Department of Human Ser Texas qualified testify about whether the driv- and that vices she claimed to under a er would have survived the accident if his federal gag prohibiting order her from re bag air deployed, we reasoned as follows: vealing specifics job about her with the Department of Justice.7 We also noted This record shows that Friedlander’s that Alford conceded that she had opinions bag never on whether a failed air worked charge as a staff nurse or a Bradley’s injuries nurse caused were based home, nursing in a never been an more on review of the Friedlander’s home, administrator of a nursing published had nev basilar literature about skull performed er nursing functions or routine fractures and the statistical effects of air id. 8. Id. 3. Id.

4. (Tex.App.-Fort 9. S.W.3d 241-42 pet.). Worth no 5. Id. at 506-07. 10. Id. at 241. 6. Id. at 507. Id.

7. 11. Id. at 242. Friedlander, Dr. literature. As did bags fatality exper- rates than on his same on candidly Dr. Kefler and Dr. Donahue both tise a medical doctor and forensic expertise in this medi- admitted their lack of pathologist. While Friedlander’s allowing jury the old rule training may and have area. While experience cal given to weight to ability his to understand determine contributed to literature, have all three testimony permitted would there is no evi- published to their present Alford any specialized had doctors and nurse dence that he more jury, rule estab- knowledge deployed opinions of the new about the effects admissibility. of bags air different threshold or failed automobile accidents lishes a however, threshold, mea- must be than other well-educated individuals That by whether the with the same sured the same benchmark access to literature.12 testimony offered the State or a is Here, theories, when tech- asked what defendant, criminal or a plaintiff a civil he niques, methodologies utilized to de- Equal application of the civil defendant. force velop opinion degree of process guar- foundation of due law the necessary injury present to cause the and, rule essentially, more of antees case, Dr. responded: this Kefler law. areas been studied —I’m These have forth in chapter not Because the standard we set quote here verse I is in direct conflict with those studies. wasn’t told to look it case now before us up, but I don’t intend to do that. we have established when the standard similarly testimony of- qualified expert have

But there been studies and ex- plaintiff a civil has been disal- fered It periments like crash test. —it’s lowed, majori- I respectfully dissent to takes this amount of G-forces and fac- ty’s holding regarding admissibility ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‍physics tors and order cause an Dr. Kefler’s and Donahue’s Dr. injury degree sеverity of this an on the issue causation. compare just that we can fall- bed, ing example, off of a for or bumping just It against

the head a dresser. inju- degree doesn’t cause this of severe ry. “[p]eer Dr. he Kefler stated that relied journal experiments, review studies and retrospective [and] clinical studies.” LUSTER, Relator. In re Michael W. Similarly, Dr. that his Donahue testified conclusions were drawn from his review of No. 14-02-00064-CV. published literature about the causes Texas, Appeals Court Yard, injuries of head As in children. (14th Dist.). Houston while the doctors’ medical experience may have contributed to their March 2002. ability litera- to understand relevant ture, is no there evidence

any specialized knowledge more about the injuries

causes of the child’s this case than to the other individuals with access Id.

12.

Case Details

Case Name: Henderson v. State

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: May 23, 2002

Citation: 77 S.W.3d 321

Docket Number: 2-99-528-CR

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.