Blasdell v. State
No.PD-0162-14
Case Summary written by Eric Matthews, Staff Member.
JUDGE HERVEY delivered the opinion of the court, in which JUDGES KELLER, JOHNSON, KEASLER, ACALA, RICHARDSON, YEARY, and NEWELL joined.
The trial court convicted Blasdell of aggravated robbery. At trial, the sole issue was the identity of the assailant. The court allowed a forensic psychologist, Dr. Steven Rubenzer, to testify regarding several potential problems with identification. However, the court excluded as irrelevant his testimony regarding the potential impact of the weapon-focus effect. The weapon-focus effect involves the potential for deterioration of the accuracy of an eyewitness’s identification when that eyewitness sees an assailant use a weapon.
In the first appeal, the Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling and agreed that the testimony was irrelevant. The Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the testimony was relevant, reversed the judgment, and remanded the case. On remand, the appellate court again affirmed the exclusion of the testimony. Instead of ruling that the testimony was irrelevant, the court determined that the scientific principles of the weapon-focus effect were not reliable by clear and convincing evidence. Blasdell again appealed the court’s judgment.
Blasdell argued that the trial court erred (1) by requiring Blasdell to prove the reliability of the weapon-focus aspect of Rubenzer’s testimony but not the others, and (2) by excluding the testimony because its reliability was then excluded in favor on the qualifications of Rubenzer and the reliability of his other testimony. The State contended that Blasdell, not the trial court, had the burden to prove the sufficiency of the testimony and failed to do so.
The court determined that Blasdell was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the testimony was reliable. Psychology evidence, which includes the weapon-focus effect, is considered “soft” science evidence. A proponent of such evidence must prove that the subject matter of the testimony is within and relies upon principles of a legitimate field of expertise. Although Rubenzer showed an extensive background in eyewitness identification, he failed to establish that he had any specific expertise on the weapon-focus effect or whether the effect is a generally accepted theory. Because Rubenzer failed to prove the reliability of the theory or how any its principles applied to the case, the court affirmed the judgment.
JUDGE MEYERS, dissenting.
Judge Meyers argued that the trial court never questioned the reliability of the weapon-focus effect; therefore, Blasdell was not required to present evidence supporting the theory. Meyers believed that “it [wa]s totally wrong and unfair” to hold Blasdell at fault for an issue that was never addressed by the trial court.