With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". op., not designated for publication) (finding legally and factually sufficient evidence that the mouth of an HIV-positive defendant was a deadly weapon when defendant bit the complainant); Najera v. State, 955 S.W.2d 698, 700-01 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997, no pet.) (finding legally and factually sufficient evidence that defendant's penis and seminal fluids were capable of causing death); Weeks v. State, 834 S.W.2d 559, 561-65 (Tex.App.-East-land 1992, pet. ref’d) (finding evidence was sufficient to sustain HIV-positive defendant’s attempted murder conviction for spitting at complainant). 6 . John outcried about being anally raped before meeting with Garza, but the outcry did not entail any comment relating to the pain he felt. 7 . See Yount v. State, 872 S.W.2d 706, 712 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). 8 . Emphasis added. 9 . See Leday v. State,

A: holding that rules of evidence do not permit an expert to give opinion or state legal conclusions regarding a question of law
B: holding that an expert opinion on a question of law is inadmissible
C: holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant
D: holding that texas rule of evidence 702 does not permit an expert to give an opinion that the complainant or class of persons to which the complainant belongs is truthful
D.