RICHARD LYNN WINFREY v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (concurring)

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 
OF TEXAS 

NO. PD-0987-09
RICHARD LYNN WINFREY, Appellant
v. 
THE STATE OF TEXAS 
ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE ELEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS 
SAN JACINTO COUNTY 
Cochran, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Womack, Johnson and Holcomb, JJ., joined. 
OPINION

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. State (1) or Nenno 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.

Filed: September 22, 2010

Publish

1. 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (setting out standards for the admissibility of scientific expert testimony under Tex. R. Evid. 702).

2. 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).