Daniel Layton, Appellant v. the State of Texas

Summary

The court held that Layton preserved his objection to evidence concerning his Xanax and Valium use because his argument adequately informed the trial court that the evidence required a showing of scientific reliability and relevance. It further held that the evidence was not shown to be relevant to intoxication by alcohol without expert testimony establishing that the medications could have affected Layton’s intoxication at the time of arrest. The court reversed and remanded for a harm analysis. Womack, J., dissenting, would have held that the statements were not scientific evidence subject to the gatekeeping requirements and would have affirmed.