Court Opinion

ID: 9811639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:26:42.624072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:46.797184
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
DAVID B. GAULTNEY, Justice.
I concur. I disagree on one point. In addressing issue two, the majority notes they “must admit to some confusion in the state of the law.” I see no confusion. While an expert witness may base her opinion on hearsay evidence reasonably relied on by experts in her field, she may also be cross-examined concerning the same type of evidence when she chooses to ignore it. Otherwise, the expert witness could elect to consider only the evidence she wants the jury to hear and ignore any evidence that conflicts with her opinion, even though it is the type of evidence reasonably relied on by experts in her field and it is evidence which would affect her opinion. See Tex.R. Evid. 703, 705. I therefore do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that the Court of Criminal Appeals departed in this case from established evidentiary law in its analysis of the permissible scope of cross-examination of expert witnesses. See Wheeler v. State, 67 S.W.3d 879, 883-86 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).