Court Opinion

ID: 9748822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:14:14.60274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:39.757374
License: Public Domain

COCHRAN, J.,
concurring, in which WOMACK, JOHNSON and HOLCOMB, JJ., joined.
Appellant did not object at trial to Deputy Pikett’s “dog scent line-up” testimony. Therefore, neither the court of appeals nor this Court has had an occasion to review or determine the admissibility of that evidence under either Kelly v. State1 or Nen-no v. State.2 But, as the majority holds, even if Deputy Pikett’s testimony concerning the “dog scent line-up” was properly admissible under Rule 702, the evidence is still legally insufficient to support appellant’s conviction.
With that understanding, I join the majority opinion.

. 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (setting out standards for the admissibility of scientific expert testimony under Tex.R. Evid. 702).

. 970 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (setting out standards for the admissibility of non-scientific expert testimony under Tex.R. Evid. 702).