Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): we overrule appellant’s first point of error. B. Finger-Counting and Hand-Clapping Tests In appellant’s second point of error, he contends that the trial court erred by admitting Trooper Pickett’s testimony concerning the manner in which appellant performed two other field sobriety tests, the “finger-counting” and “hand-clapping” tests. Appellant argues his performance of these tests constituted testimonial acts done prior to receiving his Miranda warning, which rendered testimony concerning appellant’s performance inadmissible. Appellant bases his argument upon the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990), as followed in Texas by Vickers v. State, 878 S.W.2d 329 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1994, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). However, the Court of Criminal Appeals has 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court erred by admitting a doctors testimony that a child victims description of a sexual crime was very believable (B) holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss (C) holding that after review the minutes were unambiguous and the trial judge erred in admitting parol evidence (D) holding that the trial court erred by not considering whether ordering blood tests to disestablish paternity was in the best interest of the child (E) holding that trial court erred by admitting a video showing suspect taking sobriety tests consisting of the recitation of the alphabet from f to w and counting backwards from 90 to 75
Output (English): holding that after review the minutes were unambiguous and the trial judge erred in admitting parol evidence