Court Opinion

ID: 9857451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 14:35:29.206437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:30.463792
License: Public Domain

BAIRD, Judge,
concurring.
Finding myself in disagreement with the treatment of the sixth point of error by both the plurality and the dissent, I write separately. The trial judge denied appellant’s request to voir dire, outside the hearing of the jury, the State’s expert witness prior to the expert giving his opinion. Tex.R.Crim. Evid. 705(b) provides:
(b) Voir Dire. Prior to the expert giving his opinion or disclosing the underlying *590facts or data, a party against whom the opinion is offered shall, upon request, be permitted to conduct a voir dire examination directed to the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. This examination shall be conducted out of the hearing of the jury.1
In Goss v. State, 826 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Cr.App.1992), we stated:
Under Rule 705(b), the defendant in criminal trial is undeniably entitled, upon timely request, ‘to conduct a voir dire examination directed to the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion [of the State’s expert] is based.’ The trial court must allow this examination to be conducted ‘[p]rior to the expert giving his opinion’ and ‘out of the hearing of the jury.’ ... Because of the mandatory nature of Rule 705(b), a trial judge’s denial of a timely and proper motion for such hearing would constitute error.
Id., 826 S.W.2d at 168.
Notwithstanding these authorities, the plurality holds the trial judge did not err in refusing appellant’s request for such a hearing because the purposes underlying Rule 705(b) “have been fully satisfied.” Ante, 905 S.W.2d at 588. I disagree. Rule 705(b)’s underlying purpose is to allow a party to test the basis of an opposing witness’ opinion outside the presence of the jury. But the mere asking of hypothetical questions does not satisfy this purpose. Even though some or all of the State’s hypothetical facts may provide a basis for the expert’s opinion, appellant was still entitled to determine which hypothetical facts the expert felt were important to the formulation of his opinion. Appellant was further entitled to question whether other experts in that particular field commonly rely upon similar hypothetical facts, Rule 708, or whether the expert was qualified by virtue of his knowledge, skill, experience, training or education to form an opinion based upon those hypothetical facts. Rule 702.2 Therefore, the purposes underlying Rule 705(b) were not satisfied. Consequently, under Rule 705(b), and Goss, appellant was absolutely entitled to voir dire the State’s expert out of the hearing of the jury and the trial judge erred in refusing appellant’s request to do so.
Having found error, reversal is mandated unless the error made no contribution to appellant’s punishment. Tex.RApp.P. 81(b)(2). See also, Goss, supra. The record reveals the thirty six year old appellant forced his way into an apartment by shooting through the door. Laughing, appellant alternatively shot and beat his wife until she died. Appellant then shot and severely injured a second victim. Finally, appellant shot at, but missed, a third victim. Upon leaving the apartment, appellant encountered the apartment manager, and again shot and missed his intended victim. Appellant left the scene and, shortly thereafter, kidnapped two teenage boys, forcing them to drive him to a different town. When the police located appellant, a standoff occurred, lasting several hours. Appellant was taken into custody only after a S.W.A.T. team overpowered him.
Many witnesses testified appellant had a bad reputation for being peaceful and law abiding. Testimony indicated that police responded to domestic violence calls at appellant’s home on several occasions and his wife was often bruised. Further, there was evidence of appellant’s previous altercations with the police, one of which involved an eighty-five mile per hour chase which ended with appellant asking officers to shoot him. Further, appellant was a disruptive prisoner, tearing up a mattress and clogging drains. Finally, the evidence indicated appellant was previously convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and arrested for indecency *591•with a child, after abusing a twelve year old female.
After reviewing the record in this case, I conclude beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error relating to Rule 705(b) made no contribution to appellant’s punishment.
Accordingly, I concur in the resolution of the sixth point of error and join the remainder of the opinion.
OVERSTREET and MALONEY, JJ., join this opinion.

. All emphasis is supplied unless otherwise indicated.

. Additionally, in Goss we noted:
... Affording a defendant the chance to voir dire the State’s expert witnesses gives defense counsel the opportunity to determine the foundation of the expert’s opinion without fear of eliciting damaging hearsay or other inadmissible evidence in the jury’s presence, [citation omitted]. A Rule 705(b) hearing may also supply defense counsel with sufficient ammunition to make a timely objection to the expert's testimony on the ground that it lacks a sufficient basis for admissibility.
Id. 826 S.W.2d at 168.