Hall v. State

PRICE, J.,

concurring in which JOHNSON and HOLCOMB, JJ., joined.

The court of appeals in this cause ultimately held that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant the appellant’s motion to suppress.1 Along the way, the *299court of appeals held that LIDAR technology is novel scientific evidence that is admissible only after a “full-blown” gate-keeping hearing under Kelly v. State.2 Today this Court holds (as I understand it) that, because the Texas Rules of Evidence do not apply to a hearing on a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence, and because the requirement of a Kelly hearing…