General statements from defense counsel are not sufficient to preserve error under T.R. Evid. 103(a)(2) when a trial court denies a defense motion to cross-examine a State's expert witness. The record must show the excluded evidence so that the appeals court can judge its admissibility and determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding it. Counsel's statements do not qualify as a reasonably specific summary of the evidence offered, especially when the statements seem to question the underlying science rather than the expert's credibility, and the complainant on appeal deals with the expert's credibility.

Holmes v. State No. PD-0453-07