or support for the expert’s opinion outweighs their value as explanation or support or are unfairly prejudicial.” Tex.R. Evid. 705(d). Thus, the trial court here was required to exclude Davis’s statements to Detective Graham unless the value of the statements as an explanation or support for Detective Graham’s expert opinion outweighed the danger that Davis’s statements would be used for a purpose other than as an explanation of or support for the opinion. See id. As with a rule 403 balancing test, a trial court need not conduct a 705(d) balancing test on the record. See Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500, 506 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (applying a form of analysis traditionally used in a rule 403 balancing test to rule 705); Yates v. State, 941 S.W.2d 357, 367 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>); Luxton v. State, 941 S.W.2d 339, 343
holding that the balancing test should be conducted on a casebycase basis in accord  with the tried and traditional way of adjudicating such questions holding that trial court has no duty to establish waiver on record holding that because rule 403 and daubert act independently reviewing court need not consider trial courts application of daubert if evidence was properly excluded under rule 403 holding that the court should make factual findings from the record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record holding that a trial court need not perform a 403 balancing test on the record