## Facts

- Daniel Ray Morris, the complainant’s stepfather, engaged in a years-long pattern of escalating sexualized conduct toward his stepson beginning when the child was about 11.
- The conduct included sexual discussions, physical contact (including back rubs and touching the child’s body), sexual “games,” measuring the child’s penis, persistent questions about masturbation, watching pornography together, and increasingly intimate access such as sleeping in the child’s bed.
- The State charged Morris with indecency with a child.
- At trial, the State offered expert testimony from Special Texas Ranger David Hullum about “grooming,” described as a process by which offenders build trust and gradually increase sexualized contact to desensitize a child for exploitation.
- Hullum had nearly three decades in law enforcement, extensive training hours, and substantial experience investigating sexual offenses involving child victims; he lacked formal scientific or psychological credentials.
- The trial court qualified Hullum as an expert and admitted his grooming testimony under Texas Rule of Evidence 702; Morris was convicted.
- The court of appeals affirmed; Morris obtained discretionary review.

## Issues

1. Whether a law-enforcement officer without formal psychological or scientific training may be qualified under Texas Rule of Evidence 702 to give expert testimony about child-molester grooming behavior.
2. Whether grooming is a proper and sufficiently reliable subject for expert testimony under Rule 702.
3. Whether grooming testimony should be evaluated under a flexible reliability framework for experience-based knowledge rather than “hard science” validation criteria.

## Decision

- The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the court of appeals and Morris’s conviction.
- The court held grooming behavior is a permissible subject of expert testimony because it can help jurors understand dynamics of child sexual abuse that may be outside common experience.
- The court held Hullum was properly qualified as an expert based on extensive specialized experience and training in child-sexual-abuse investigations.
- The court treated grooming testimony as specialized, experience-based knowledge, allowing a flexible reliability review rather than requiring “hard science” factors such as peer review or error rates, while still requiring trial-court gatekeeping for reliability and helpfulness.

## Legal Principles

- Texas Rule of Evidence 702 allows expert testimony when the witness is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education and the testimony will assist the factfinder.
- For non-hard-science expertise, reliability may be assessed through a flexible inquiry focused on whether the field is legitimate, the testimony fits within that field, and the expert’s approach is reasonable given the type of knowledge.
- Expert testimony on grooming may be admissible to explain a pattern of conduct used to build trust and increase sexualized interactions, providing context for behavior that jurors might otherwise view as ambiguous or inconsistent with abuse.
- Formal academic credentials are not required when the proffered expertise is grounded in substantial, specialized professional experience and training, and the testimony is shown to be reliable and helpful.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the admission of experience-based expert testimony on child-molester grooming under Rule 702, concluding that grooming is an admissible expert subject and that extensive specialized investigative experience can qualify a law-enforcement witness to testify when the trial court finds the testimony reliable and helpful to the jury.


Morris v. State, 361 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)