Stewart v. State
| Decision Date | 07 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 6-85-022-CR,6-85-022-CR |
| Citation | 705 S.W.2d 232 |
| Parties | Tommy Lee STEWART, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Richard Anderson, Dallas, for appellant.
John D. Nation, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, for appellee.
Tommy Lee Stewart was convicted of murder and assessed punishment of life imprisonment. On appeal he does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, but urges that reversible error was committed when the prosecution was allowed to introduce evidence referring to polygraph tests.
The testimony complained of was:
Q. Sergeant Rice, you stated earlier that you did in fact investigate Michael Riley; is that right?
A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Q. And you said that you talked to witnesses?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You relied upon Tommy Lee Stewart's statement that Michael Riley was not in back when the murder was committed?
[A.] Yes, sir.
Q. Checked fingerprints?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In this kind of investigation, when you are investigating individuals to see if they are involved in this kind of offense, is one of the tools of your investigation the use of a polygraph or lie detector test?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. And as a result of all this investigation, Michael Riley was cleared and charges were not filed.
A. That's correct.
Stewart contends that this testimony was calculated to inform the jury that the suspect Michael Riley had taken and passed a polygraph test and for that reason no charges were filed against him. He argues that this evidence refutes his defensive theory that he did not commit the murder but Riley did. (Stewart admitted being present when the murder occurred but denied taking part in the killing.)
Generally, due to their unproven reliability, the results of polygraph tests are not admissible for any purpose. Nethery v. State, 692 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Crawford v. State, 617 S.W.2d 925 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Jones v. State, 680 S.W.2d 499 (Tex.App.--Austin 1983, no pet.). It logically follows that it is improper to allow evidence even implying that such a test was taken if the effect of such evidence is to implicitly impeach the defendant's testimony or defensive theory, or to bolster the State's case. The evidence allowed here falls into the former category. However, we find that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cortez v. Director
...prejudiced by his counsel's failure to object to testimony that Jones took polygraph examinations. See Stewart v. State, 705 S.W.2d 232, 234 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 1986, pet. ref'd) (concluding that testimony indicating that suspect other than defendant took a polygraph examinationwas harml......
-
In re D.L.
...case. See, e.g., id. at 684; Sparks v. State, 820 S.W.2d 924, 927-30 (Tex.App.-Austin 1991, no pet.); Stewart v. State, 705 S.W.2d 232, 234 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1986, pet. ref'd). The The record shows that Sheriff's Detective Tim Bryan conducted the initial interview of D.L.'s grandmother, w......
-
Ex parte Huddlestun, 06-15-00224-CR
...Nevertheless, the reasoning in these cases is helpful in deciding the issue presented here.18 See also Stewart v. State, 705 S.W.2d 232, 234 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1986, pet. ref'd) ("It logically follows that it is improper to allow evidence even implying that [a polygraph] test was taken if......
-
Sparks v. State
...692 S.W.2d 686, 700 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1110, 106 S.Ct. 897, 88 L.Ed.2d 931 (1986); Stewart v. State, 705 S.W.2d 232, 234 (Tex.App.1986, pet. ref'd). The results of a polygraph test may be disclosed not only by an affirmative statement of a witness, but merely by a q......