Blasdell v. Texas (Original)
Annotate this Case
The only evidence against Appellant in his prosecution for aggravated robbery was the identification testimony of the victim. Appellant offered testimony from a forensic psychologist intended to educate the jury about the so-called "weapon focus effect." The trial court ruled that this expert testimony was not relevant, however, because it was insufficiently tied to the particular facts of the case, and the Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed Appellant's conviction in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court granted Appellant's petition for discretionary review in order to examine the court of appeals's holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion to exclude the expert's testimony for a lack of "fit." Upon review, the Court reversed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.