Winfrey, Richard Lynn Sr. ( 2010 )

    













IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

---

NO. PD-0987-09

---

RICHARD LYNN WINFREY, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

---

ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE ELEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN JACINTO COUNTY

---

   Cochran, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Womack, Johnson and Holcomb, JJ., joined.

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).