### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 01 13 -C V

______________________________

I N T HE MA TT ER O F D. W.P.

On Appea l from the County Court at L aw, Sitting as a J uvenile Court Har rison County , Texas Trial Court No. 3840

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Moseley"I n juvenile proc eeding s, the requirements for a dmissibi lity of evide nce in r evocation 1 proce eding s appea

r not to differ

much fr o m those in adjudication proc eeding s." Rober t Dawson, Te x as J uv e nile Law 254 (6th ed. 2004). 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON D.W.P., a juvenile, wa s ad j udicated a

delinquent child by

the trial cour

t for possessing marihuana

in a school zone and plac ed on probation. W hen informe d by an assistant princ i p al of Marsha ll High School that D.W.P. was acting unusual, Offic er Shawn Estes administered a "dr ug
scre en" to D.W.P . At trial, D.W.P. obj ecte d to the reliability of the drug scre en under Da ub e rt . See Daubert v. M

errell Dow Pharms., Inc ., 50 9 U .S. 57 9, 59 2 ( 19 93 ); se e als o E.I . du P on t deNe mo ur

s & Co. v. Robinson , 9 23 S.W. 2d 54 9, 55 0 ( Te x. 19 95 ); Ke lly v. State , 8 2 4 S. W. 2 d 5 6 8 , 5 7 3 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1992). Offic er Estes was unable to r emember the name of the drugscre en which w as perf ormed. Of

fice r Estes also testified he did not know the underly ing sc ientific principles of the drugtest or whethe r the test had be en peer reviewed. The trial court a dmitted the evidence over D. W.P. ' s o bje c tio n a

nd mod if ie d th e pr ior dis po sit ion

. Th e fa ilure of the dr ug sc re e n wa s th e so le g round for

modification. On appea l, D .W.P .' s sole issue is that the trial court e rre d in admitting the evidenc e of the drugtest without adequate evidenc e of its re liability

. T h e S tate conc edes the admission of the urine test re sults was err or and r equests this Court to reve rse and rema nd this case. Even thoug h appea ls of juvenile court order s are g ener ally treated as civil case s, we be lieve the cr i m i n al standard f

or the a dmission of scientific evidenc e should apply in light of the 1 quasi-cr iminal nature of juve nile proce eding s. See I n re D.I.B

. , 988 S.W .2d 753, 756 (Tex. 1999).We note that at trial the State a rgued proof

of re liability

was not nec es s ary , making an 2 analog y to rada r guns. The under ly ing sc ientific theory and the technique applying the theory for a few techniques, suc h as the intox ilyzer and radar g uns, have been statutorily or judicially rec og nized as valid. See T EX . T RA N SP . C ODE ANN . § 52 4. 03 8 (V erno n 2 007) ; Mireles v . Tex. De p't of Pub. Sa fe ty , 9 S .W .3 d 12 8, 13 1 ( Te x. 19 99 ); Ste v e ns on v . S tate , 8 95 S.W. 2d

69 4, 69 8– 99 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95 ); Mi lls v . S

tate , 9 9 S. W.3 d 2 00 , 2 02 (T e x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 2 00 2, pe t. r e f' d) ; Te

x . D e p 't 3 The propone nt of scientific e vidence must prove, by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e, that the e vid ence is both relevant a

nd reliable in order for the evidence to be admissible. Ke lly , 824 S.W .2d at 573. To be c onsidered reliable, evidence based on a scientific theory must satisfy three criter ia: (1) the underlying sc ientific theory must be valid; (2) the technique a pply ing the theory

must be valid; and (3) the te chnique must have been pr operly applied on the oc casion in question. Id .; Sc he rl v. Sta te , 7 S.W .3d 650, 651–52 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. re f' d). The State a dmits error ba sed on He rn an de z v . S tate , 116 S.W .3d 26, 31–32 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). In Hernande

z , the def endant' s probation was r evoked ba sed on a urine test for the pr esenc e of drug s using a

machine c alled an A Dx analy zer. Id . at 28. Ho we ve r, the te c hn ic ian w a s una ble to expl ain how the AD x analy zer worke d or the scientific theory behind the ADx analy zer. Id . The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held " [a] lthough a ppellate c ourts may

take judicial notice of other ap p el l at e o p i n i o n s co n ce rn i n g a s p ec i fi c s ci en t i fi c t h eo ry o r m et h o d o l o gy

i nev al u at i n g a t ri al j u d ge's Da ub e rt / Ke lly ' g ateke epi n g ' decision, judicial notice on a ppeal c annot serve as the sole sourc e of

supp ort for a bare tr ial cou rt reco rd conc erni ng sci ent if ic r eli abi li ty ." Id. at 31–32 (footnote omitted). I n this case, ther e is no evidenc e of the underl y i n g s ci en t ific theory or that the tec hnique applying the theory

is valid. Whil e Of

fice r E stes descr ibed what steps he took in perfor ming the 2of

Pub. Safety v. J

imenez , 995 S.W .2d 834, 837–38 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.). The pa rties have not c i t ed u s an y au t hority that the theory

or tec hnique of the ur ine test at issue has be en rec og nized as valid. Fur

ther, even when the first two criter ia have been met by leg islative finding or judicial fiat, the State is still r equire d to pr ove the tec hnique was pr operly applied on the oc casion in question. Re

y no lds v . S

tate , 2 0 4 S

. W

. 3 d

3 8 6 , 3 9 1 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 6 ). O f f i c e rE s t es 's te sti mony wa s in su ff

ic ie nt t o e stab lish th a t he pr op e rl y a pp lie d th e te c hn iqu e on

the oc c a sio n in question. 4 test, he wa s unable to testify that those steps wer e co n s i s tent with a pre scribed pr ocedur e. When asked w hat was the first step of the " direc tions on the administration of the test," O ffice r Estes stated,

" As fa r a s e xac tly

wh a t th e dir e c tio ns say , I do no t know wh a t' s one , two , thre e , f our, no . I c an' t te ll y ou that." T he re cord c ontains no evidenc e, other tha n Offic er Este s' s testimony , conce rning the drug test introduced. The trial court e rre d in admitting the test re sults over D.W.P.'s objection. We r e ve rs e the or de r o f t

he tr ia l c ourt and re mand thi s ca se fo r pr oc e e din g s con sis te nt w ith this opini on.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: J anuar y 3, 2008 Date D ecide d: J anuar y 4, 2008