## Facts

- Arturo Petriciolet and Leticia Gracia had an on-and-off relationship; Gracia was the mother of his youngest child, and he regularly visited the children at her home.
- On July 28, 2010, Petriciolet came to Gracia’s home for dinner and to watch television; he brought a semi-automatic firearm and placed it on a living-room table.
- After going upstairs to say good night to the children, Petriciolet returned downstairs; in a dark living room, he picked up the gun and shot Gracia in the face.
- Gracia begged for help; Petriciolet laughed, walked away, and left on foot. Gracia pretended to be dead because she feared being shot again.
- Police responded; Gracia identified her boyfriend as the shooter and provided a description.
- An officer detained Petriciolet nearby; during transport back to the scene, he said he was sorry, became agitated, and attempted to kick out a patrol-car window.
- A jury convicted Petriciolet of aggravated assault of a family member, assessed 50 years’ confinement, and the court entered an affirmative deadly-weapon (firearm) finding.
- On appeal, Petriciolet raised a single issue challenging the admission of expert testimony offered during the punishment phase concerning risk of future violence and domestic-violence dynamics.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Texas Rule of Evidence 702 by admitting punishment-phase expert testimony on violence risk/future dangerousness as relevant and reliable.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert testimony at punishment.
- The court concluded the expert was qualified, the testimony was sufficiently reliable, and it was relevant to the jury’s punishment decision.
- Any alleged weaknesses in the expert’s opinions were for the jury to assess through cross-examination and went to weight rather than admissibility.

## Legal Principles

- Admission of expert testimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal is warranted only if the ruling falls outside the zone of reasonable disagreement.
- Under Texas Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony must be relevant and reliable; the trial court acts as a gatekeeper on qualification and reliability.
- Reliability may be shown through experience-based professional methods and accepted principles in the field; not all expert testimony requires purely scientific testing.
- In punishment, a jury may consider evidence bearing on appropriate sentencing, including risk of future violence or similar “future dangerousness” considerations.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the punishment-phase admission of an expert’s domestic-violence and violence-risk testimony, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion under Rule 702 because the expert was qualified, the methodology was sufficiently reliable, and the opinions assisted the jury in assessing punishment.


Petriciolet v. State, 442 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d)