to some object because he saw the ligatures on Jeffs body (and appellant admitted tying Jeff to the bed at one point). He knew Jeff Wright was stabbed and that the wounds were inflicted on the couple’s bed because he saw the bloody mattress and remnants of blood stains on the bedroom walls by the bed. He was able to study the wounds themselves, noting the direction of the stabs and the location of the wounds. He knew the relative sizes of Susan and Jeff Wright, surmising that Susan could not overcome her husband without some plan. Finally, he observed appellant’s erratic behavior after the crime. All of these facts Detective Reynolds knew from personal knowledge and experience, and his testimony about them did not violate Rule 602. b. The witness coul uston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. State, 760 S.W.2d 292, 296
holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying an expert witness in the area of gang identity and investigation based on his training and experience holding that a law enforcement agent may not testify about an opinion reached during his investigation if the agents reasoning process depended in whole or in part on his specialized training and experience holding an agent from the drug enforcement agency could testify regarding the street value of cocaine where the agent was testifying regarding matters within his personal knowledge and experience as a narcotics officer holding officer could testify based on his training and experience that a defendants actions were consistent with selling cocaine holding that court could properly infer that veteran officer believed there was a violation of the law based on his long experience with law enforcement