CROSSOVER: Domestic-Violence Expert May Explain Abuse Dynamics—but Cannot Label a Spouse the Victim Without a Sufficient Factual Foundation

Baker v. State, 06-26-00013-CR, September 25, 2026.

On appeal from 97th District Court, Clay County, Texas

Synopsis

A domestic-violence expert may explain abuse dynamics, trauma, and their potential effects on behavior, but the expert may not identify a particular spouse as the relationship’s victim without a sufficient factual basis for that case-specific opinion. Under Texas Rules of Evidence 702 and 705(c), the trial court acted within its discretion by excluding an opinion based on a single two-hour interview while permitting general testimony about domestic violence and trauma.

Relevance to Family Law

Although Baker is a criminal appeal, its expert-admissibility analysis applies directly to contested divorces, conservatorship proceedings, protective-order cases, and property disputes involving allegations of family violence, coercive control, or trauma. A family-law expert cannot transform one party’s account into an admissible conclusion merely by presenting that account through specialized terminology. When an expert proposes to designate one spouse or parent as the “victim,” “abuser,” or “primary aggressor,” the proponent must establish that the opinion rests on sufficiently complete and reliable facts or data—not simply the expert’s credentials and a limited interview.

The distinction between general educational testimony and case-specific labeling is especially important in custody litigation. General testimony may assist a court or jury in understanding delayed reporting, recantation, continued contact with an alleged abuser, trauma responses, or the dynamics of abusive relationships. A case-specific opinion identifying a parent as the victim or perpetrator, however, requires a reliable methodology tied to an adequate factual investigation. The opinion may otherwise be limited or excluded under Rules 702 and 705(c).

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Cindi Rawlins Baker was convicted of murdering her husband, James Wayne Baker II, after stabbing him once in the chest. Baker claimed self-defense. The record included evidence of prior violence within the marriage, but the evidence did not present an uncontested, one-directional history of abuse.

A police officer testified that he had previously arrested James for domestic violence after observing bruises on Baker’s thighs and a puncture wound on James’s arm. Baker’s siblings described seeing her with injuries, including a black eye, broken fingers, and a broken wrist. Baker also told investigators that James had pending assault cases involving her.

Other evidence suggested that Baker may have participated in or initiated prior violent encounters. The parties’ daughter testified that Baker had injured James and that James had reported breaking Baker’s hand while preventing her from stabbing him. James’s sister testified that Baker had previously stabbed James, causing a punctured lung. A Child Protective Services investigator considered Baker “more of the aggressor.”

Baker retained Kelly Slaven, a licensed clinical-social worker supervisor, to testify about domestic violence, trauma, and the effects of trauma on a person’s mind and behavior. Slaven also intended to offer a case-specific opinion that Baker was the victim in the relationship.

Slaven formed that opinion after interviewing Baker once for approximately two hours. She had not reviewed the police reports or video recordings and had not interviewed other witnesses. Slaven acknowledged that additional information could change her analysis and that a one-sided account could mislead the jury. The record did not indicate that she reassessed her opinion after learning about evidence that Baker may have been a mutual combatant or aggressor in prior altercations.

The trial court permitted Slaven to testify generally about domestic violence and trauma but prohibited her from identifying Baker as the victim in the relationship. The jury rejected Baker’s self-defense claim, convicted her of murder, and assessed twenty-three years’ imprisonment.

Issues Decided

• Whether Rules 702 and 705(c) permitted Slaven to identify Baker as the victim in the marital relationship based principally on a single two-hour interview with Baker.
• Whether the trial court acted within its discretion by limiting Slaven to general testimony concerning domestic violence and trauma.
• Whether Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 38.36 and 38.371 independently authorized the excluded case-specific opinion.

Rules Applied

• Texas Rule of Evidence 702. A qualified expert may offer opinion testimony when the expert’s scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge will help the factfinder understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue.

• Texas Rule of Evidence 705(c). An expert’s opinion is inadmissible when the underlying facts or data do not provide a sufficient basis for the opinion.

• Abuse-of-discretion review. A ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony must be affirmed if it falls within the zone of reasonable disagreement. A trial court abuses its discretion only when it acts arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without reference to guiding rules and principles.

• Wolfe v. State, 509 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). The proponent of scientific expert testimony must establish that the testimony is sufficiently reliable and relevant to assist the factfinder.

• Vela v. State, 209 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Credentials and a subjective conclusion are not enough. A case-specific opinion cannot rest merely on the subject’s account “dressed up and sanctified” as expert testimony.

• Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997). An expert’s assurance that an opinion is valid does not establish admissibility; courts must independently evaluate the underlying data and methodology.

• Viterbo v. Dow Chemical Co., 826 F.2d 420 (5th Cir. 1987). Although experts receive latitude in selecting their sources, a source may carry so little weight that the resulting opinion should not reach the factfinder.

• Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 38.36 and 38.371. Article 38.371 expressly makes relevant relationship evidence subject to the Texas Rules of Evidence and other applicable law. The Article 38.36 argument was not preserved in the trial court.

• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1. A complaint generally must be presented to the trial court to be preserved for appellate review.

Application

The appellate court focused on the foundation for Slaven’s proposed case-specific conclusion, not merely her professional qualifications or the general legitimacy of domestic-violence expertise. Slaven had interviewed Baker for approximately two hours, but she had not reviewed law-enforcement materials, watched available recordings, or interviewed other witnesses. Her proposed designation of Baker as the victim therefore depended substantially on Baker’s own account.

That limited foundation mattered because the trial record contained materially conflicting evidence about the history and direction of violence in the marriage. Some evidence supported Baker’s account of victimization, while other evidence suggested mutual violence or that Baker had initiated prior incidents. Slaven acknowledged that additional information could affect her analysis and that a one-sided portrayal could mislead the jury. Nothing in the record showed that she reconsidered her conclusion after receiving the conflicting information.

The court treated the trial judge’s ruling as an exercise of the gatekeeping function imposed by Rules 702 and 705(c). The trial court could reasonably conclude that the expert lacked sufficiently complete and reliable facts to identify Baker as the victim in this particular relationship. That determination fell within the zone of reasonable disagreement.

The ruling was also appropriately tailored. The trial court did not exclude the field of domestic-violence expertise or prohibit all testimony from Slaven. Instead, it allowed her to educate the jury about domestic violence, trauma, and their general psychological effects while excluding only the unsupported case-specific label.

The statutory arguments did not alter the result. Baker had not presented Article 38.36 to the trial court, so that argument was not preserved. Article 38.371 did not override the evidentiary ruling because the statute expressly makes admissibility subject to the Texas Rules of Evidence.

Holding

The Sixth Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting Slaven from testifying that Baker was the victim in the marital relationship. Given the limited interview, the lack of review of corroborating or contradictory materials, and the conflicting evidence concerning prior violence, the trial court could reasonably determine that the opinion lacked a sufficient factual basis under Rule 705(c).

The court further approved the trial court’s distinction between general and case-specific testimony. Slaven remained free to explain domestic violence and trauma generally, but she could not apply a dispositive victim label to Baker without an adequate factual foundation.

The court also rejected Baker’s reliance on Articles 38.36 and 38.371. The Article 38.36 contention was not preserved, and Article 38.371 remained subject to the Texas Rules of Evidence. The court affirmed the murder conviction.

Practical Application

In Texas family-law litigation, Baker supports a focused challenge to the foundation for case-specific domestic-violence opinions. The inquiry should not stop with whether the witness is qualified to discuss abuse dynamics. Counsel should separately examine whether the witness has a reliable basis to apply those principles to the parties before the court.

Conservatorship and possession disputes. An expert may explain how trauma can affect memory, disclosure, demeanor, continued contact, or decision-making. If the expert intends to identify one parent as the victim or perpetrator, counsel should develop the factual basis through records, collateral interviews, prior pleadings, medical evidence, law-enforcement materials, and consideration of conflicting accounts.

Protective-order proceedings. Time constraints do not eliminate Rules 702 and 705(c). When a clinician or advocate offers a case-specific label, opposing counsel may request a voir dire examination concerning the duration and scope of the evaluation, the materials reviewed, the methodology used, and whether the witness tested the account against other available information.

Custody evaluations and amicus investigations. A report’s usefulness and admissibility may depend on whether the evaluator considered information from both parents and other relevant sources. Counsel should distinguish between opinions based on a comprehensive investigation and conclusions derived from a therapeutic relationship or one-sided clinical history.

Therapist testimony. A treating professional may reliably describe diagnosis, symptoms, treatment, and statements made for treatment purposes. That does not automatically establish a foundation to determine disputed historical facts, designate a spouse as the victim, or identify another person as the perpetrator.

Jury trials involving family violence. Case-specific terminology can carry substantial persuasive force. A request to limit the expert to general principles may be more effective than seeking wholesale exclusion, particularly when the expert’s field is legitimate but the application to the parties is inadequately supported.

Property litigation. Family-violence allegations may affect fraud claims, reimbursement theories, disproportionate-division arguments, tracing disputes, or testimony concerning financial control. An expert who characterizes conduct as coercive control or economic abuse must still connect that opinion to sufficient records and a reliable case-specific methodology.

Preservation. A party offering the testimony should make an offer of proof identifying the exact opinion, methodology, underlying facts, and relevance. A party opposing the testimony should invoke Rules 702 and 705(c), request an examination outside the factfinder’s presence, and obtain a ruling that distinguishes general educational testimony from case-specific conclusions.

Checklists

Building a Foundation for a Case-Specific Abuse Opinion

• Identify each opinion the expert will offer, including any designation of a party as a victim, perpetrator, or primary aggressor.
• Separate general educational opinions from opinions applying abuse concepts to the parties.
• Establish the expert’s methodology for evaluating competing accounts.
• Provide relevant pleadings, affidavits, police reports, medical records, photographs, recordings, and electronic communications.
• Identify prior allegations, findings, protective orders, and dispositions.
• Arrange appropriate collateral interviews when permitted by the expert’s role and methodology.
• Require the expert to address materially conflicting information.
• Confirm whether new information caused the expert to reassess or qualify the opinion.
• Connect each case-specific conclusion to identified facts or data.
• Prepare a Rule 702 and Rule 705(c) proffer outside the factfinder’s presence.

Challenging an Unsupported Case-Specific Opinion

• Request disclosure of the expert’s file, notes, relied-upon materials, and opinion summary.
• Determine the number, duration, and purpose of the expert’s interviews.
• Ask whether the expert interviewed both parties or any collateral witnesses.
• Identify records or recordings the expert did not review.
• Establish whether the opinion depends primarily on one party’s self-report.
• Examine whether the expert investigated facts inconsistent with the proposed conclusion.
• Ask whether additional information could change the opinion.
• Determine whether the expert reassessed the opinion after receiving contradictory information.
• Invoke Rules 702 and 705(c) separately.
• Request a hearing or voir dire examination outside the factfinder’s presence.
• Seek a tailored limitation to general testimony if complete exclusion is unwarranted.
• Obtain express rulings on each category of proposed opinion.

Preparing a Treating Professional to Testify

• Clarify whether the witness is acting as a treating provider, consulting expert, or forensic evaluator.
• Define the limits of opinions formed for treatment rather than litigation.
• Distinguish observations and diagnoses from conclusions about disputed historical events.
• Avoid assuming that a patient’s clinical history independently proves the truth of every reported event.
• Identify any professional or methodological limits on evaluating a non-patient spouse or parent.
• Prepare the witness to explain the sources supporting each opinion.
• Confirm that the testimony will not exceed the opinions properly disclosed.
• Consider limiting the testimony to trauma symptoms, treatment, and general dynamics when the case-specific foundation is incomplete.

Preserving the Record

• State the specific evidentiary grounds for admission or exclusion.
• Cite Rules 702 and 705(c) when challenging the sufficiency of the opinion’s foundation.
• Present all statutory grounds to the trial court rather than raising them for the first time on appeal.
• Make an offer of proof if material testimony is excluded.
• Include the expert’s qualifications, methodology, sources, and proposed opinions in the offer.
• Obtain a ruling that clearly identifies which opinions are admitted and which are excluded.
• Request limiting instructions when general testimony is admitted but case-specific labeling is prohibited.
• Ensure that exhibits used during the admissibility hearing are included in the appellate record.

Citation

Baker v. State, No. 06-26-00013-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana Sept. 25, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion in Baker v. State.

Family Law Crossover

The procedural mechanism is the trial court’s gatekeeping review under Texas Rules of Evidence 702 and 705(c). In a family-law case, a party may challenge a proposed expert opinion by requesting an examination outside the factfinder’s presence and requiring the proponent to establish both the reliability of the methodology and the sufficiency of the facts or data supporting the particular opinion. The court may then separate admissible general testimony about domestic violence or trauma from an inadequately supported conclusion that a particular spouse or parent is the victim, perpetrator, or primary aggressor.

This procedure can arise in a divorce, SAPCR, modification, protective-order proceeding, or property dispute whenever a mental-health professional, social worker, family-violence specialist, custody evaluator, or other expert seeks to apply general abuse concepts to the parties. Baker supports a tailored ruling rather than an all-or-nothing approach: the court may permit testimony that assists the factfinder in understanding abuse dynamics while excluding a case-specific label that rests on incomplete information, untested self-reporting, or a failure to account for material conflicting evidence.

~~5b490f4a-6643-4bb7-8e88-d46cb387e581~~