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
C OCHRAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which W OMACK, J OHNSON and
H OLCOMB, 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
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).
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