IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
FROM THE ELEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS
SAN JACINTO COUNTY
OPINION
Appellant did not object at trial to Deputy Pikett's "dog scent line-up" testimony. Therefore, neither the court of appeals nor this Court has had an occasion to review or determine the admissibility of that evidence under either Kelly v. State (1) or Nenno v. State. (2) But, as the majority holds, even if Deputy Pikett's testimony concerning the "dog scent line-up" was properly admissible under Rule 702, the evidence is still legally insufficient to support appellant's conviction.
With that understanding, I join the majority opinion.
Filed: September 22, 2010
Publish
1. 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (setting out standards for the admissibility of
scientific expert testimony under Tex. R. Evid. 702).
2. 970 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (setting out standards for the admissibility of
non-scientific expert testimony under Tex. R. Evid. 702).