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. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. In two issues appellant challenges the trial court's rulings as to the admissibility of certain evidence. In a third issue, appellant argues the trial court erred by overruling his objections to the State's argument at the punishment phase on grounds of matters outside the record.
For the reasons set forth below, we resolve these issues against appellant and affirm the trial court's judgment. Delfierro testified that he had received training in such investigations and always used a certain protocol, which included responding to a party who made the first contact.
Delfierro also used language in the profile and chats that, according to his research, a fourteen-year-old girl would use. Appellant brought up a sexual reference eight minutes into the first chat. Delfierro printed the five chat log files on December 20, , and they were admitted as State's Exhibit 5. The following was elicited on cross-examination. Audu as an expert. Audu was a Microsoft computer systems engineer familiar with Yahoo chat rooms and the structure of saved data.
It is a binary data format. If we need something that is not - that is tamper proof - let me say that 90 percent, then that is what should be tendered. Appellant was unable to obtain any other chats from his friend's computer. Standard of Review We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. Shuffield v. State, S. We do not disturb the trial court's decision if it was within the bounds of reasonable disagreement. We uphold the trial court's ruling if it is reasonably supported by the record and correct under any theory of law applicable to the case.
Willover v. State, 70 S. Applicable Law Before admitting expert testimony, the Texas Rules of Evidence require a trial judge to make three separate inquiries: qualification, reliability, and relevance. See Vela v. Pursuant to relevance, the inquiry is whether admitting the expert testimony will actually assist the fact finder in deciding the case.
