## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . P D - 408- 07 D A N IE L L A Y T O N , A p p ell a n t

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE FI RST CO URT O F AP PEALS

HA RRI S CO UNTY M E YE RS , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t , i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P .J ., and P RI CE , J OHNS ON , K EASLE R , H ERVEY , H OL C OM B , and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . W OMACK , J. , f

i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on.

O P I N I O N A ppel l ant , D ani el L ayt on, w as char ged w i th dr i vi ng w hi l e i nt oxi cat ed bythe i ntr oduct i on of al cohol i nt o t he body . A ft era j urytr i al , A ppel l antw as convi ct ed and s ent ence d bythe tr i al j udge t o 180 day s i n j ai l , w hi ch w as pr obat ed forone y ear , and a $300 fi ne. A ppel l antappea l ed, ar gui ng thatthe tr i al courterr ed byadmi t t i ng evi dence of A ppel l ant ’ s us e of X anax a nd V al i um w i thoutr equi r i ng the St at e t o s how thati tw asL ay ton–Page2

Unless otherw ise noted, all fur ther re ference s to Rules refer to Texas Rules of Evidence . 1 r el i abl e and c om pet ents ci ent i fi c evi dence . T he courtof appe al s aff i r m ed the dec i s i on of the tr i al courtand hel d t hatthe s t at ement s m ade byA ppel l antt o the arr es t i ng offi cer re g a rd in g h is p e rs o n a l u s e o f X a n a x a n d V a liu m w e re a d m is s ib le . L a y to n v . S ta te , 263 S .W .3 d 1 7 9 (T e x . A p p .– H o u sto n [ 1 D ist.] 2 0 0 7 ). T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls d e c lin e d to st a d d re ss A p p e llan t’s o th e r g ro u n d s, h o ld in g th a t A p p e llan t h a d n o t p re se rv e d e rro r w ith reg ard to O ff

icer A ll en ’s co m m en ts. W e g ran ted A p p ell an t’ s p eti ti o n fo r discre ti o n ary re v iew to c o n sid e r w h e th e r e rro r w a s p re se rv e d , an d w h e th e r th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls pr oper l yappl i ed R ul e of Evi dence 401. W e r ever s e. 1 BA CKGROUND O f f ice r C h a rle s A llen sto p p e d A p p e llan t w h e n h e o b se rv e d A p p e llan t’s c a r a t a re d -lig h t, sto p p e d in a c ro ss w a lk , an d p ro tru d in g in to a n in ter se c tio n a t 4 a .m . T h e tra f f ic stop , an d the e v en ts l ea d ing u p to it , w ere rec o rde d in the iren ti retyb yO ff icer A ll en ’s v id e o c a m e ra , a n d th e v id e o w a s a d m itte d in to e v id e n c e a t tr ia l. T he vi deo s how s O ffi cerA l l en as ki ng A ppel l anti f he ha d been dr i nki ng, t o w hi ch A ppel l antr epl i ed thathe had c ons um ed fi ve ors i x dr i nks betw een the hour s of 6 p. m . and m i dni ght . A ppel l antadded thathe w as noti nt oxi cat ed, butdi d have a “buzz . ” The offi certhen as ked A ppel l anti f he t ook anym edi cat i ons , and A ppel l antacknow l edged thathe t ook both X anax a nd V al i um , w hi ch w er e pr es cr i bed byhi s doct orforhi gh bl ood p r e s s u r e . Ap p e l l a n tq u a l i f i e d th e s t a t e me n tb ys a y i n g th a th e h a d t a k e n Va l i u m a t2 p . m.L ay ton–Page3

Th eho ri zontal- g aze- nystagmus (H GN ) t e st i s o neof thre eso brie ty

te sts tha t c on sti tut e 2 the standardized field-sobriety-test batter y (the other

two tests arethe walk- and-turn te st and the one-le g -stand test). Scientificevidenc e esta blishes that the HGN test is a reliable roadside measureof a person’s impairment dueto alcohol or c ertain other drug s. See National Highway Traf fic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transpor tation, Ho rizon tal

Ga zeNy sta gm us : The Scienc e &the Law , available at the pr evi ous aft ernoon, buthad nott aken a nyX anax s i nce the daybefor e. O ffi cerA l l en resp o n d ed that tho se m ed icati o n s w ere n o t i n tend ed to tr ea t high b loo d p ressu re, bu t w ere fo r th e treatm en t of

an x iety , an d inq u ir ed w h ethe r A p p ell an t had rea d the in serts th at are in c lu d e d w ith th e m e d ica tio n . O f f ice r A llen a d d e d th a t itp ro b a b lyw a s n o t a g o o d id e a to be d ri nk i ng “on t op of those. ” T he o ffi cer then con du ct ed a seri es of fiel d sob ri et yt est s, fr om w hi ch he c oncl uded A ppel l antw as i nt oxi cat ed, and arr es t ed hi m . A ppel l antdi d not gi ve a br eath orbl ood s ampl e. A ppel l antfi l ed a pr e- tr i al m ot i on t o s uppr es s the port i ons of the vi deo t ape w hi ch cont ai ned hi s and the off i cer ’ s s t at ement s r egar di ng the X anax a nd V al i um , on the g ro u n d s th a t th e sta tem e n ts w e re irre lev a n t. T h e trial c o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n . A t trial, befor e the vi deo w as ent er ed i nt o evi dence bythe St at e, A ppel l antagai n obj ect ed t o the por t i ons of the t ape r efe r enci ng hi s X anax a nd V al i um us e. O ut s i de the pr es ence of the j ury , A ppel l antar gued thatthe evi dence s houl d notbe admi t t ed w i thoutexpertt es t i m ony t o pr ovi de founda t i on. T he tr i al courtoverrul ed A ppel l ant ’ s obj ect i on and al l ow ed the evi dence t o be admi t t ed, r eas oni ng thatthe i nqui ryi nt o the pr es cr i pt i on m edi cat i on w as rel evan tas a predi cat e t o the adm i nis trat i on of the ho ri zon t al -gaze-ny st agm us t est (H G N ). 2L ay ton–Page4

htt p:/ /www .nhts a .dot. g ov/pe op le/in jur y /enf orc e/nystagmus /hgntxt. htm l. The followingis the pertinent portion of the c losing a rgument delivere d by

the State at 3 Appe lla nt’ s trial: “On that night, Officer Allen a sked him about his medical problems. And he told Offic er Allen, I have high blood pressure . He told Off icer Allen, I take Xa nax and Valium for my

blood p re s s ure . An d

Of fi ce r A l l enca l l edh i mo uto nth at . He s ai d , th atm ed i cat i o ni s n o tfo r h i gh blood pressure , that medication is for a nx iety . . . .” O f f ice r A llen tes tifie d th a t, w h e n h e in iti a llysp o k e to A p p e llan t o n th e n ig h t in ques t i on, A ppel l ant ’ s br eath had a s tr ong odorof al cohol . O ffi cerA l l en al s o s ai d that al though A ppel l antw as veryt al kat i ve, he s l urr ed hi s s peec h and hi s ey es w er e r ed and b loo d sh o t. D u ri n g the o ff icer’s t esti m o n y , n o ref

ere n ce w as m ad e to A p p ell an t’ s a d m iss io n o f

p re sc rip tio n -d ru g u se o r O f f ice r A llen ’s c o m m e n ts th e re a f ter . T h e o n ly m ent i on of X anax a nd V al i um i n t he pr es ence of the j uryotherthan thati n the vi deo w as bythe St at e dur i ng i t s cl os i ng ar gum ent . T he j uryfound A ppel l antgui l tyof D W I by 3 in tro d u c tio n o f

a lco h o l. A p p e llan t ap p e a led th e v e rd ict, a rg u in g th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in a llo w in g in to ev iden ce stat em en ts m ad e b yA p p ell an t and the a rresti n g o ff icer reg ard ing A p p ell an t’ s us e of X anax a nd V al i um w i thoutr equi r i ng the St at e t o s how the s t at ement s ’ r el evanc e thr ough r el i abl e and c om pet ents ci ent i fi c evi dence . T he courtof appe al s l ooked at A ppel l ant ’ s and O ffi cerA l l en’ s s t at ement s as tw o s epar at e i s s ues . C ons i der i ng A p p e llan t’s a n sw e rs to O f f ice r A llen ’s q u e stio n a b o u t m e d ica tio n s, th e c o u rt h e ld th a t, “bec aus e the evi dence w as notus ed as pr oof of i nt oxi cat i on, butw as m er el ya r es ul tof pr edi cat e ques t i ons befor e admi ni s t er i ng the H G N t es t , a ‘ gat ekee per ’ hear i ng w as notL ay ton–Page5 r equi r ed. ” Layt on , 263 S. W . 3d at182. Fi nal l y , the courtof appe al s concl uded that A ppel l antdi d notm ake a s peci fi c obj ect i on t o O ffi cerA l l en’ s s t at ement s r egar di ng the m e d ic a tio n s , a n d th e re f o re , th e e rr o r h a d n o t b e e n p re s e rv e d f o r a p p e a l. W e gr ant ed A ppel l ant ’ s pet i t i on fordi s cr et i onaryr evi ew t o cons i derthe fol l ow i ng tw o is sues: W h e th e r th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls e rre d in h o ld in g th a t A p p e llan t f a iled to pr es erve err ori n hi s obj ect i on t o t es t i m onyfr om a pol i ce of fi cerconce rni ng use of prescr i pti on drugs. W hetherthe C our tof A ppeal s pr oper l yappl i ed Texas R ul e of Evi dence 401 i n hol di ng thatthe tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng over obj ect i on A ppel l ant ’ s s t at ement s t o pol i ce thathe t akes pr es cr i pt i on m edicat i on and the p oli ce of fi cer’ s st at em ent r egardi ng the u ses of tho se prescr i pti on m edicat i on s.

P RE S E RV AT I ON OF E RR OR In o rd e r to p re se rv e a n iss u e f o r a p p e llate re v iew , a tim e lya n d sp e c if ic o b jec tio n is re q u ir e d . T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 3 .1 (a )(1 )(A ); T EX . R. E V ID . 1 0 3 (a )(1 ); G ill e n w a ters v . S ta te , 2 0 5 S . W . 3 d 5 3 4 , 5 3 7 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). A sp ec ifi c o b jecti o n is ne ce ssaryto inf o rm th e trial ju d g e o f

th e iss u e a n d b a sis o f

th e o b jec tio n , an d to a llo w th e ju d g e a c h a n c e to ru le o n th e is s u e a t h a n d . N e a l v. S ta te , 1 5 0 S . W . 3 d 1 6 9 , 1 7 8 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ), ci t i ng Z ill e n d e r v . S ta te , 5 5 7 S .W .2 d 5 1 5 , 5 1 7 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 7 ). A s w e sta ted in L a n k sto n v . S ta te , 827 S. W . 2d 907, 909 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1992) , “al l the partyhas t o do t o avoi d the for fei tur e of a compl ai nton appea l i s t o l etthe tr i al j udge know w hathe w a n ts, w h yh e th in k s h e is e n tit led to it, a n d to d o so c lea rlye n o u g h f o r th e ju d g e toL ay ton–Page6

In DeLarue , the cour

t of appe als deter

mined that the trial cour

t erre d in admitting 4 e vide nc eof

mari jua na fo un d in thede fend ant’ s b loo ds tre am to sh owintoxic atio n w ith out a Daubert-Ke lly

hearing, be causewithout proof of scientific reliability , the evidenc e wa s more prejudicial than probative. 102 S.W.3d at 401. under s t and hi m ata t i m e w hen the tr i al courti s i n a pr operpos i t i on t o do s om ethi ng about i t . ” B ey ond t hi s , ther e ar e no s peci fi c w or ds ort echni cal cons i der at i ons r equi r ed foran o b je c tio n to e n s u re th a t th e is s u e w ill b e p re s e rv e d f o r a p p e a l. Id . I f the corr ectgr ound o f e x c l u s i o n wa s a p p a r e n tt o th e j u d g e a n d o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l , n o wa i v e rr e s u l t s f r o m a “gene r al ori m pr eci s e obj ect i on. ” Id . a t 9 0 8 , ci t i ng Zi l l ender , 5 5 7 S .W .2 d a t 5 1 7 . Forexampl e, w e s ai d t hatthe one- w or d obj ect i on, “hea r s ay , ” w as s uffi ci entt o put th e tr ia l ju d g e a n d o p p o s in g c o u n s e l o n n o tic e o f th e re a s o n f

o r t h e o b je c tio n . Lanks t on , 8 2 7 S .W .2 d a t 9 1 0 , ex

p la in in gL o n gv . S ta te , 800 S. W . 2d 545, 548 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1 9 9 0 ). In a d d iti o n , w e h a v e p re v io u slysta ted th a t “w e w ill n o t b e h yp e r-te c h n ica l in exami nat i on of w hethererr orw as pr es erved. ” A rc h ie v . S ta te , 221 S. W . 3d 695, 698 ( T ex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). I n thi s cas e, befor e openi ng s t at ement s atthe tr i al , A ppel l antpr es ent ed the tr i al j udge and St at e’ s att orneyw i th a copyof D eL a ru e v . S ta te , 1 0 2 S .W .3 d 3 8 8 (T e x . A p p .– H ous t on [14th D i s t . ] 2003, pet . r ef’ d) , upon w hi ch he ba s ed hi s ar gum entforexcl us i on of al l s t at ement s r egar di ng hi s pr es cr i pt i on- drug us e. L at eri n the tr i al , w hen the vi deo 4 c o n tain in g th e sta tem e n ts re g a rd in g A p p e llan t’s u se o f m e d ica tio n s w a s o f

f e re d in to evi dence bythe St at e, A ppel l antobj ect ed and the fol l ow i ng excha nge t ook pl ace out s i de th e p r e s e n c e o f

th e j u r y:L ay ton–Page7 [D efe ns e] : O ffi cerA l l en made i nqui ryof M r . L ayt on as t o w hetherornothe has

been t aki ng m edi cat i ons . T he medi cat i ons admi t t ed w er e X anax a nd V al i um . W hen the o ffi cer as ked , w el l , atw hat t i m e w ere these t aken? The r es pons e gi ven w as X anax, nott oday . V al i um at2: 00 p. m . . T her e i s no one her e t o extr apol at e the l i fe of the V al i um w hi ch w as t aken, and as the C our tal r eadyknow s , ther e has t o be an extr apol at i on i n t erm s of drugs and the D eLar ue cas e s ay s thatunder a 4 0 3 an aly sis, ce rt ainlyn eith er o f th o se d rug s sh o u ld co m e in b ef o re th e ju ry . T h is is n o t a s itu a tio n w h e re th e yw o u ld b e re lev a n t to anythi ng beca us e the r el evanc e has n’ tbeen de m ons tr at ed on the V al i um and ther e i s no r el evanc e as t o the X anax. [ T h e C o u rt]: I d o n ’t k n o w th a t . . . d o y o u h a v e a n yth in g sc ien tific to

demonstr at e t o m e thatthes e have no i m pacton the bodyand w hatthei rl i fe e xpect ancyof ea ch of thes e drugs ar e and w hen t a k e n i n o n e ’ s b o d y? [D efe ns e] : A ctual l y , J udge, that ’ s notm ybur den, that ’ s the St at e’ s . T heyhave

the b u rde n o f sh o w ing y o u u n d er Ke lly . [The C our t ] : W el l , the r el evanc yi s thatthe H . G . N . i s one of the – the

pr edi cat e r equi r ement s i s thattheyhave t o i nqui r e w hetheror noty ou’ r e t aki ng anym edi cat i on as i tr el at es t o the ac cur acy orthe – w hatthey ’ r e l ooki ng fori n the H . G . N . So y our obj ect i on t o r el evanc yi s deni ed. [D ef en se]: Itm igh t be re leva n t t o inq u iry . Itis no t r elev an t t o g ive th e a n sw er. [The C our t ] : O verrul ed. [D efe ns e] : I ’ m j us tr equi r ed t o m ake the obj ect i on and make m yr ecor d. [The C our t ] : Y ou have made y ourr ecor d. A ft err ece i vi ng a copyof D eLar ue and hea r i ng A ppel l ant ’ s ar gum ent , the tr i al jud g e sh o u ld h av e b ee n aw are o f th e b asis o f th e o b jecti o n . Itis ap p are n t th at A p p ell an t’ s obj ect i on w as thatevi dence of hi s us e of X anax a nd V al i um w as i nadmi s s i bl e w i thoutt heL ay ton–Page8 St at e pr ovi ng the ac cur acyand r el i abi l i tyof the evi dence and i t s r el evanc e t o w hether A ppel l antw as i nt oxi cat ed bythe i ntr oduct i on of al cohol . A ppel l antnot ed thatw i thout e x tra p o latio n o n th e X a n a x a n d V a liu m to d e ter m in e th e ir e f f e c t o n th e b o d y , the S tate had nots how n t hei rr el evanc e t o t he i s s ue i n ques t i on. A l though the part i es di d not s peci fi cal l yaddr es s the off i cer ’ s s ubs equents t at ement s r egar di ng the medi cat i ons , s uch st at em ents fal l un der A pp el l ant’ s object i on t o the r el evan ce of his use of

these m e d ic a tio n s . A ppel l ant ’ s obj ect i on w as s peci fi c enough t o putthe tr i al j udge and oppos i ng couns el on not i ce of

the i s s ue and t o aff

or d them t he opportuni tyt o r emedythe def ectby c a lli n g a n e x p e rt w itn e ss . T h e trial ju d g e sp e c if ica llysta ted th a t A p p e llan t m a d e h is r ecor d forthe obj ect i on. T hi s i ndi cat es thatthe tr i al j udge w as aw ar e of the bas i s for obj ect i on, butfound i tdi d nothave a nym er i t . A ccor di ngl y , w e di s agr ee w i th the courtof ap p ea ls an d co n clud e tha t error w as p rese rve d as to all ev iden ce ref ere n cing A p p ell an t’ s u s e o f X a n a x a n d V a liu m . RELEVANC E OF EVI DENCE W e re v ie w a tr ia l c o u rt ’s ru lin g o n a m o tio n to s u p p re s s f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . V illa rr e a l v. S ta te , 9 3 5 S .W .2 d 1 3 4 , 1 3 8 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); Mo n tg o m e ry v . S ta te , 8 1 0 S . W . 2 d 3 7 2 , 3 7 9 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 , reh ’g g ran ted). W e u p h o ld a tri al j u d g e’s d e c isio n to a d m it ev id e n c e a s lo n g a s th e re su lt i s n o t o u tsid e th e z o n e o f re a so n a b le d is a g re e m e n t. Mon t

go m ery , 8 1 0 S .W .2 d a t 3 8 0 .L ay ton–Page9 A ppel l antar gues thatthe tr i al j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on byadmi t t i ng evi dence of A p p e llan t’s u se o f

X a n a x a n d V a liu m . If

th e sta tem e n ts w e re n o t ad m itt e d to sh o w h is i nt oxi cat i on, A ppel l antques t i ons how theyw er e r el evantforpurpos es of R ul e 401. B oth t he tr i al j udge and the courtof appe al s s ai d thatthe s t at ement s about Ap p e l l a n t ’ s u s e o f

Xa n a x a n d Va l i u m w e r e a d mi s s i b l e a s p r e d i c a t e i n q u i r i e s t o th e HGN tes t ad m in iste re d w h e n A p p e llan t w a s a rre ste d . G e n e ra lly , all re lev a n t ev id e n c e is a d m is s ib le . T EX . R. E V ID . 4 0 2 . R e lev a n t ev id e n c e is th a t w h ich h a s a n yten d e n c yto m ake the exi s t ence of anycons equent i al fac tm or e orl es s pr obabl e than i tw oul d be w ith o u t th e e v id e n c e . T EX . R. E V ID . 401. I ti s i m por t ant , w hen det erm i ni ng w hether evi dence i s r el evant , thatcourt s exami ne the purpos e forw hi ch the evi dence i s bei ng in tr o d u c e d . Mo re n o v . S ta te , 858 S. W . 2d 453 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1993) . I ti s cr i t i cal t hat ther e i s a di r ectorl ogi cal connec t i on betw een the ac tual evi dence and the pr opos i t i on s o u g h t to b e p ro v e d . Id . A ttri al , the juryw as i nst ruct ed thatA pp el l ant had b een ch arged w i th the offen se of o perat i ng a m otorveh i cl e i n a p ub l i c place w hil e i ntoxi cat ed. T he juryw as al so i ns truct ed as t o the def

i ni t i on of i nt oxi cat ed. T he def i ni t i on s uppl i ed s t at ed that “i nt oxi cat ed” meant“nothavi ng the norm al us e of ment al orphy s i cal fac ul t i es byr eas on o f th e in tro d u c tio n o f

a lco h o l in to th e b o d y .” T h e re f o re , to b e re lev a n t in th is s p e c if ic cas e, the evi dence neede d t o i nfl uence the j ury ’ s det erm i nat i on of w hetherA ppel l antw as i nt oxi cat ed byal cohol , notanothers ubs t ance combi ned w i th al cohol . W i thouta s how i ngL ay ton–Page10 th a t X a n a x a n d V a liu m , tak e n m o re th a n 2 4 h o u rs a n d 1 4 h o u rs p rio r, re sp e c tiv e ly , w o u ld have ha d a s yner gi s t i c ef fec ton A ppel l ant ’ s degr ee of i nt oxi cat i on byal cohol , the e v id e n c e is n o t r e le v a n t. A ppel l ant ’ s cont ent i on on appea l i s notthatthe evi dence of hi s pr es cr i pt i on- drug us e i s i rr el evantpers e, butthatthe r el evanc e i s condi t i onal upon pr oof thati ti s s ound and ver i fi abl e. A ppel l antar gues thatw i thoutthats how i ng, the evi dence i s notr el i abl e, and, ther efor e, i r r el evant . W hen the r el evanc e of e vi dence depends upon the ful fi l l m ent of a c ondi t i on of fa ct , the courtm ayadmi tthe evi dence cont i ngentupon the i ntr oduct i on o f e v id e n c e s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt a f

in d in g o f th e f u lf illm e n t o f

th e c o n d itio n . T EX . R. E V ID . 104( b) . R el i abi l i tyof s ci ent i fi c evi dence demands a cert ai n t echni cal s how i ng and d e p e n d s o n w h e th e r t h e e v id e n c e h a s a b a s is in s o u n d s c ie n tif ic m e th o d o lo g y . Jor dan v. S ta te , 9 2 8 S . W . 2 d 5 5 0 , 5 5 5 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ). S c ien tific e v id e n c e h a s th e a b ili tyto m isle a d a ju ryth a t is n o t p ro p e rlye q u ip p e d to ju d g e th e p ro b a tiv e f

o rc e o f th e e v id e n c e . C a se

y v . S ta te , 215 S. W . 3d 870, 880 ( T ex. C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). P u rsu a n t to R u le 7 0 2 , itis th e re sp o n sib ili tyo f th e trial c o u rt to det erm i ne w hetherthe s ci ent i fi c evi dence offe r ed i s s uffi ci ent l yr el i abl e, as w el l as re le v a n t, to h e lp th e ju ry in re a c h in g a c c u ra te re s u lts . Ke lly v . S ta te , 824 S. W . 2d 568, 572 (Tex . C ri m . A pp . 19 92 ). T his places the tr i al j ud ge in the rol e of a “gatekeeper, ”w ho se re s p o n s ib ility it is to w e e d o u t in a d m is s ib le e v id e n c e b a s e d o n a la c k o f re lia b ility. S ex to n v . S ta te , 9 3 S . W . 3 d 9 6 , 9 9 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); Jor dan , 928 S. W . 2d at555;L ay ton–Page11 Ke lly , 824 S. W . 2dat572. T he pr oponentof s ci ent i fi c evi dence bear s the bur den of p ro v in g to th e trial c o u rt, b yc lea r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e , tha t th e e v id e n c e is s u f f ic ie n tly re le v a n t a n d re lia b le to a s s is t th e ju ry in d e te rm in in g a f a c t in is s u e . Sexton , 9 3 S .W .3 d a t 1 0 0 ; J

a c k so n v . S ta te , 1 7 S . W . 3 d 6 6 4 , 6 7 0 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); W e a th e rr e d

v . S ta te , 1 5 S . W . 3 d 5 4 0 , 5 4 2 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Ke lly , 824 S. W . 2d at 5 7 3 . W e hav e previ ou sl yassert ed thatevidence d eri ved from a sci enti fi c t heo rym ust m e e t th re e c riter ia in o rd e r to b e re liab le in a n yg iv e n c a se : “( a ) th e u n d e rly in g sc ien tific theorym us tbe val i d; ( b) the t echni que appl y i ng the theorym us tbe val i d; and ( 3) the t echni que musthave be en pr oper l yappl i ed on the occ as i on i n ques t i on. ” Ke lly , 824 S. W . 2d at573. W e al s o i dent i fi ed an none xcl us i ve l i s tof fa ct or s thatcoul d i nfl uence a tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e te rm in a tio n o f re lia b ility. Id . T hes e i ncl ude: ( 1) the ext entt o w hi ch the theoryand pr ocedur e ar e ac cept ed as val i d bythe r el evants ci ent i fi c comm uni ty ; ( 2) t he t echni que’ s pot ent i al r at e of e r r or ; ( 3) the ava i l abi l i tyof expe r t s t o t es tand as s es s the m e th o d o r te c h n iq u e ; (4 ) th e c lar itya n d p re c isio n w ith w h ich th e u n d e rly in g sc ien tific pr emi s e and appr oach c an be e xpl ai ned t o the court ; and ( 5) the know l edge a nd e x p e ri e n c e o f

th e p e rs o n (s ) w h o a p p lie d th e m e th o d o lo g yo n th e o c c a s io n in q u e s tio n . Id . T he es s ent i al el ementdi s put ed byA ppel l anti s thatthe evi dence of hi s us e of m edi cat i ons s houl d nothave be en admi t t ed w i thoutthe St at e es t abl i s hi ng thati tw as r el evantt o hi s i nt oxi cat i on. T her e i s no evi dence as t o the dos age t aken byA ppel l ant , t heL ay ton–Page12 exac tt i m es of i nges t i on, orthe hal f- l i fe of the drug i n the human body . C ons i der i ng t he len g th o f tim e b e tw e e n th e in g e stio n o f th e m e d ica tio n a n d th e tim e o f a rre st, a lay j u ro r is n o t i n a p o sit ion to d eterm ine w h ethe r X an ax an d V ali u m , take n m o re tha n 1 2 h o u rs befor e arr es t , w oul d have a nyeff ecton A ppel l ant ’ s i nt oxi cat i on. T her e w as no t es t i m ony i ndi cat i ng thatO ffi cerA l l en had a nym edi cal know l edge r egar di ng the us es of X anax a nd V a liu m , o r a b o u t th e e f f e c t o f c o m b in in g th e m e d ic a tio n s w ith a lc o h o l. T he tr i al courterr ed i n al l ow i ng the evi dence of A ppel l ant ’ s us e of X anax a nd V al i um t o b e i ntr od uced t o the j uryw i tho ut the S t at e fi rs tshow i ng that the ev i den ce w as r el evantt o A ppel l ant ’ s i nt oxi cat i on. CO NC L US I ON W ith o u t ex p e rt tes tim o n yto p ro v id e th e f o u n d a tio n re q u ire d to a d m it sc ien tific evi dence , the t es t i m onyr egar di ng A ppel l ant ’ s us e of pr es cr i pt i on m edi cat i ons w as not sh o w n to b e re lev a n t. T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls is re v e rse d , an d th e c a se is r e ma n d e d t o th e c o u r to f a p p e a l s f

o ra n a n a l y s i s o f

h a r m.

M ey ers , J.

D el i ver ed: February4, 2009 P ub l i sh