Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
David Gene Wright v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-06-00219-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 14, 2007; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
David Gene Wright appealed his conviction for two counts of indecency with a child, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing expert testimony from Carrie Paschall, claiming she was unqualified and that her methods were not recognized in the field. The case involved allegations that Wright had inappropriately touched his six-year-old daughter, K.W. After M.W. discovered K.W. in a compromising position, K.W. alleged that Wright had touched her. The prosecution presented a videotaped interview with K.W., while the defense called Dr. Richard Schmitt, who argued that K.W.'s behavior did not support allegations of sexual trauma. The court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Paschall's testimony, applying an abuse of discretion standard of review. Under Texas Rule of Evidence 702, an expert may testify if their specialized knowledge assists the trier of fact. The court noted that there are no strict guidelines for determining a witness's qualifications as an expert; rather, qualifications can stem from various forms of expertise, including training and experience. The ruling emphasized that proponents of expert evidence must demonstrate its relevance and reliability to assist the jury, which the prosecution successfully did in this case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, leading to the upholding of Wright's conviction and nine-year sentence. Wright contends that the admissibility of scientific evidence should follow the standards established in **Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.**, which emphasizes a two-pronged reliability and relevance test. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals adopted a similar standard in **Kelly v. State**, requiring trial courts to assess the reliability and relevance of scientific expert testimony. In non-hard science fields, such as social sciences, Kelly's reliability standard is applied with less rigor. The reliability of "soft" science evidence can be demonstrated by establishing (1) the legitimacy of the field, (2) the relevance of the subject matter, and (3) the appropriate application of field principles by the expert. Paschall, a forensic child interviewer with six years of experience and extensive training, was deemed qualified to testify under **Rule 702**. She presented the RATAC protocol, recognized by the American Prosecutors Research Institute and used by Tarrant County C.P.S. workers, as a legitimate method for conducting child forensic interviews. Her testimony demonstrated that her expertise aligned with the established principles of her field, despite Dr. Schmitt's opposing view on the scientific validity of RATAC. The court concluded that conflicting evidence does not lead to an abuse of discretion by the trial court, affirming the relevance and reliability of Paschall's testimony. Wright's appeal was thus overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.