Stephen Demond Odom v. State ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
___________________
NO. 09-14-00070-CR
___________________
STEPHEN DEMOND ODOM, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 13-16301
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Stephen Demond Odom guilty of intentionally or knowingly
causing serious bodily injury to Jakyra Leatrice Henderson, a child. See Tex. Penal
Code Ann. § 22.04(a)(1) (West Supp. 2014). In his appeal, Odom argues (1) the
evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the trial court erred when it
allowed him to be cross-examined about his response to a request by police that he
undergo a polygraph; and (3) the prosecutor, in closing, engaged in improper
1
argument. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the
prosecutor to ask Odom whether he agreed to the request made by police that he
take a polygraph. We further conclude Odom was harmed by the error in admitting
the evidence about the requested polygraph. We reverse and remand the case for
retrial.
Background
Jakyra, a three-year-old child, died on the morning of January 15, 2012,
from complications resulting from injuries that she suffered to her abdomen. Dr.
Tommy Brown, the forensic pathologist who performed Jakyra’s autopsy, ruled
that Jakyra’s death was the result of a homicide. According to Dr. Brown, Jakyra’s
injuries were the result of blunt force trauma that she suffered to her abdomen,
resulting in injuries to her liver, mesentery, pancreas, duodenum, and stomach.
Detective Mark Hogge, a police officer employed by the City of Beaumont,
investigated Jakyra’s death. During Odom’s trial, Detective Hogge testified that
during his investigation, Odom became a suspect because (1) Odom usually cared
for Jakyra while Jakyra’s mother, Keneste Lennette, was at work; (2) Jakyra was in
Odom’s care on the day before her death; (3) all of Jakyra’s family members,
except Odom, cooperated with the police during the investigation of Jakyra’s
death; and (4) the police believed that Jakyra died at approximately 4:30 a.m.,
2
significantly earlier than the account Odom gave police when he explained how
she died.
A few days after Jakyra died, Nancy Blitch, an investigator employed by the
Garth House, 1 interviewed J.W., Jakyra’s five-year-old brother. According to
Blitch, J.W. did not disclose any information to indicate that Odom had caused
Jakyra any injury. Blitch also testified that J.W. did not appear to be frightened of
anyone during the interview she conducted of him shortly after Jakyra died.
After failing to discover any evidence connecting Odom to the injuries
Jakyra was found to have suffered, the police closed their investigation in Jakyra’s
case without making an arrest. On the anniversary of Jakyra’s death, a local
television station broadcast a request by Crime Stoppers for the public’s assistance
in solving Jakyra’s homicide. Khristella Joseph 2 responded to the broadcast.
Khristella reported to Crime Stoppers that, shortly after Jakyra died, J.W. told her
that he saw Odom “kick and punch [Jakyra] in the stomach to make her stop
crying.”
1
Garth House is a child advocacy center that allows children to state what
happened to them to a social worker while the stories are being recorded. Other
agencies can then view the recording to avoid repeated interviews about what
happened.
2
During the trial, Khristella testified that she knew Keneste Lennette,
Jakrya’s mother, because Keneste is her stepfather’s niece. Khristella also
explained that she knew J.W. and Jakyra.
3
Khristella testified during Odom’s trial.3 According to Khristella, J.W. also
told her that he was frightened of Odom. Khristella acknowledged that before
calling Crime Stoppers, she did not tell Keneste or Jakyra’s grandmother about
what J.W. said to her before Jakyra’s funeral. Khristella also acknowledged that
she had received a reward for the information she gave to Crime Stoppers. To
explain why she did not come forward earlier, Joseph stated that she did not know
about the results of Jakyra’s autopsy before she heard the television broadcast
indicating that the police needed assistance to solve Jakyra’s homicide.
Acting on Khristella’s tip, the police arranged for J.W. to undergo a second
interview with Blitch. The second interview occurred in January 2013. According
to Blitch, in J.W.’s second interview, she asked J.W. what he came to Garth House
to talk about: J.W. responded, stating that his mother told him to tell her that Odom
had punched his sister in the stomach. During the trial, Blitch testified that it was
difficult to tell if J.W. had been coached before his second interview. Blitch stated
that during J.W.’s second interview, J.W. told her that he saw Odom strike Jakyra
3
Although tips to crime stoppers organizations are generally privileged,
reports to such organizations under some circumstances may become admissible.
See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 414.008 (West 2012). The record does not reflect how
the parties discovered Khristella’s identity. Although Odom raised several
objections to Khristella’s testimony at trial, none of the objections were pursued in
Odom’s appeal.
4
in the stomach. Blitch also testified that J.W. gave her a detailed description of the
incident when he saw Odom hit Jakyra in the stomach.
In March 2013, the State indicted Odom for intentionally and knowingly
causing serious bodily injury to Jakyra by hitting her with his hand. The indictment
alleges that the incident occurred on or about November 20, 2011. In a second
count, the State alleged that on or about that same date, Odom recklessly caused
serious bodily injury to Jakyra by hitting her with his hand.
A total of sixteen witnesses testified during the guilt-innocence phase of the
case, including Odom, who testified in his own defense.4 The only witness who
testified that Odom struck Jakyra was J.W. He was seven years old when Odom’s
trial occurred. Based largely on J.W.’s testimony, the jury convicted Odom for
knowingly or intentionally injuring Jakyra by hitting her with his hand. 5 Following
the punishment phase of the trial, the jury assessed a life sentence.
4
In the punishment phase of the case, the State called no witnesses, but
Odom and four other witnesses testified for Odom in the punishment phase of the
case. The witnesses who testified in the punishment phase of the case did not give
the jury information that indicated that Odom had caused Jakyra’s injuries, and
Odom continued to assert that he never struck Jakyra while she was in his care.
5
Based on the trial court’s instructions, the jury returned no findings on
count two of the indictment.
5
Sufficiency of the Evidence
In issue one, Odom argues that the evidence is insufficient to show that he
knowingly or intentionally caused Jakyra’s injury. According to Odom, the State’s
evidence showed only that he intended to engage in the conduct of striking Jakyra
with his hand, but he argues that the evidence fails to show that he knowingly or
intentionally caused Jakyra’s injury. In response, the State argues that the record
contains sufficient evidence to infer that Odom, when he hit Jakyra, intentionally
or knowingly caused Jakyra to suffer a serious injury.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, an
appellate court considers all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict to decide whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341, 360 (Tex. Crim. App.
2013). In reaching its verdict, a jury is entitled to view the circumstantial evidence
that is before it in a trial as being just as probative as the direct evidence that is
relevant to proving a defendant’s guilt. Temple, 390 S.W.3d at 359. Additionally,
in some cases, a defendant’s guilt may be established by circumstantial evidence
alone. Id.
6
In this case, Odom’s first issue challenges whether the evidence before the
jury was sufficient to show that he acted knowingly or intentionally in causing
Jakyra’s injury. A defendant’s intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence
such as the acts, the words, and the conduct of the defendant. Guevara v. State, 152
S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). When a jury’s findings depend wholly on
circumstantial evidence, every fact need not point directly and independently to the
guilt of the defendant; it is enough if the conclusion is warranted by the combined
and cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances. Id. at 49. In resolving
any conflicting inferences that may arise from the evidence in a case, the jury is the
sole judge of the credibility and weight to be attached to the testimony of the
witnesses. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. When the record supports conflicting
inferences, appeals courts are required to presume that the jury resolved such
conflicts in favor of the verdict, and they must defer to the jury’s resolution of the
conflicts that exist in the testimony. Temple, 390 S.W.3d at 360 (citing Jackson,
443 U.S. at 326).
In Odom’s case, both direct and circumstantial evidence points to Odom as
the person who was responsible for causing the severe internal injuries that were
discovered during Jakyra’s autopsy. For example, in addition to J.W.’s testimony
about having seen Odom strike Jakyra in the stomach, there was medical testimony
7
before the jury that someone with the strength of an adult would be required to
inflict the severity of the internal injuries that she suffered. Additionally, the
medical testimony showed that Jakyra had old internal injuries that were healing as
well as more recent internal injuries. Medical testimony indicated that the pattern
of new injuries superimposed on older injuries that were healing indicated that
Jakyra’s injuries were probably not the result of an accident. A pediatrician, called
as an expert witness by the State, concluded that Jakyra had been a victim of abuse.
The medical testimony also indicates that a significant amount of force would be
required to inflict the extent of the internal injuries Jakyra suffered.
When Odom testified in the guilt phase of the case, he denied that he ever hit
Jakyra. However, as the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses, the jury was
entitled to find that Odom’s denial was not credible. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. In
resolving the conflicting inferences from the evidence, the jury was entitled to
view Odom’s suggestion—that Jakyra’s stomach symptoms were caused by
drinking soured milk—as suspicious. In this case, the jury was entitled to conclude
that Jakyra’s injuries were caused by an adult, and to conclude that Odom was the
adult who caused the injuries to Jakyra’s stomach.
The jury was also entitled to infer that Odom acted knowingly or
intentionally in causing Jakyra to suffer a serious injury. In criminal cases, the
8
defendant’s state of mind is almost always proven through circumstantial evidence.
See Hernandez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 806, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Lopez v.
State, 630 S.W.2d 936, 942 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). Intent can be inferred from
the acts, words, and conduct of the accused. Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487
(Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A person acts intentionally with respect to his conduct
when “it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the
result.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 6.03(a) (West 2011). A person acts knowingly
with respect to the result of his conduct “when he is aware that his conduct is
reasonably certain to cause the result.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 6.03(b) (West
2011). In determining an accused’s intent, the events that occurred before, during,
and after the offense are relevant to show that the accused acted knowingly or
intentionally when he caused the victim’s injury. See Pitonyak v. State, 253 S.W.3d
834, 844 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d).
In this case, the jury was entitled to infer that Odom lied to Keneste about
the reason that Jakyra began to suffer symptoms on the day before she died, to
infer that Odom engaged in a course of conduct designed to conceal his role in
causing Jakyra’s injury after her serious injury became apparent to him, and to
infer that Odom lied about hitting Jakyra in the stomach. In our opinion, the
cumulative force of the direct and circumstantial evidence of his guilt was
9
sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that Odom inflicted the injury intending to
cause a serious injury. Viewing the entirety of the direct and circumstantial
evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational jury
could have found that Odom knowingly or intentionally caused the injury that
resulted from his conduct. See Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. 2013);
Hart v. State, 89 S.W.3d 61, 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). We overrule issue one.
Request for Polygraph
In issue two, Odom complains that the trial court erred by allowing the
prosecutor to question him about being asked by the police to take a polygraph. In
response, the State contends that its cross-examination was properly allowed
because Odom opened the door to the questions about the polygraph when he
responded to a question from the prosecutor asking if he ever became
uncooperative in the investigation when he responded by testifying that he did
“everything [the police] asked [him] to do.” After Odom made that statement, the
trial court interrupted the proceedings, asked the attorneys to approach the bench,
and discussed with the attorneys whether Odom opened the door to being
questioned “in all fairness, to everything.” Given the context of the discussion, 6 the
6
The transcript of the trial reflects that several questions earlier, the
prosecutor asked Odom whether he “cooperated with them and did everything that
they asked of [him]?” Odom responded: “I did whatever they asked me to do.”
10
trial court’s reference to “everything” clearly referenced the trial court’s earlier
discussion with the attorneys for the parties about whether it would allow
testimony about the polygraph to be placed before the jury. At that point, Odom’s
attorney advised the court that even if the trial court considered the testimony to
now be relevant, any evidence about the polygraph would be more prejudicial than
probative on the question of whether Odom had been cooperative with the police.
See Tex. R. Evid. 403. The trial court denied Odom’s objection, ruling that the
probative value of Odom’s testimony about the polygraph was “not substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
After the trial court overruled Odom’s Rule 403 objection, the prosecutor
asked Odom the following questions:
[Prosecutor:] Mr. Odom, you said you did everything that the police
asked you to do. That’s not true, is it? It’s a yes or no question.
[Odom:] Yes, ma’am.
[Prosecutor:] Because they asked you to submit to a polygraph
examination, didn’t they?
[Odom:] Yes, ma’am.
[Prosecutor:] And you refused to do that, didn’t you?
Odom’s attorney objected that the prosecutor was attempting to lead Odom to say
he did not give a polygraph. The prosecutor responded by arguing that Odom had
opened the door to being asked about the polygraph. At that point, the trial court
ruled that the testimony about the polygraph was “not coming in yet.”
11
[Odom:] I didn’t refuse.
[Prosecutor:] You didn’t?
[Odom:] I did not refuse.
[Prosecutor:] Well, did you submit to one?
[Odom:] I didn’t submit to one because they supposedly had been
getting with my lawyer or over to my lawyer and setting up an
appointment with my lawyer. I was doing what my lawyer asked you
to do.
[Prosecutor:] Really? You told them you’d take a polygraph when you
left; but you never would come back and take one, would you?
[Odom:] I did tell them that I would take one.
[Prosecutor:] Yeah, you told them that?
[Odom:] Yeah, but after I talked --
[Prosecutor:] You didn’t show up to take it, did you?
[Odom:] They never told me a definite day to show up.
[Prosecutor:] Didn’t you make an appointment and you didn’t show
up and they kept trying to call you?
[Odom:] No, ma’am, I didn’t.
....
[Prosecutor:] The point is you never did show up and take one, did
you?
[Odom:] It was never a point in time to take one.
12
[Prosecutor:] So, that is no, right?
[Odom:] No, ma’am.
On appeal, Odom argues that the evidence about the polygraph was
inadmissible because his testimony about the circumstances under which he
refused the request proved to be more prejudicial than probative. Under Rule 403
of the Texas Rules of Evidence, a trial court is allowed to exclude relevant
evidence if the probative value of that evidence is substantially outweighed by a
danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, causing an
undue delay, or the danger of needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Tex. R.
Evid. 403. If the trial court’s ruling is in the zone of reasonable disagreement, the
ruling will not be found to be erroneous on appeal. See Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d
622, 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). A trial court’s ruling on a Rule 403 objection is a
decision on which a trial court is afforded significant deference. Id.
When a party objects that testimony should be excluded because it would be
more prejudicial than probative, the trial court is required to engage in a balancing
process. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 389-90 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)
(op. on reh’g). Factors considered in a Rule 403 balancing test include: (1) how
compellingly the evidence will make a fact of consequence more or less probable;
(2) the potential the prejudicial evidence has to impress the jury “‘in some
13
irrational but nevertheless indelible way[;]’” (3) the time it will take the proponent
of the evidence to develop it; and (4) the degree to which the proponent needs the
evidence to prove a fact of consequence; i.e., does other probative evidence before
the jury already establish the fact at issue, and is this fact related to one of the
issues in dispute. See Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155, 169 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997) (quoting Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389-90). In Odom’s case, the unfair
danger posed by the admission of the evidence about the polygraph was that the
jury would view Odom’s response to the request that he take a polygraph as the
equivalent of a test result that indicated he struck Jakyra when that was the fact the
State needed to establish to prove its case.
With respect to polygraphs, the Court of Criminal Appeals has consistently
ruled that because such tests are not sufficiently reliable, polygraph results are
inadmissible at trial. See Nesbit v. State, 227 S.W.3d 64, 66 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App.
2007); Tennard v. State, 802 S.W.2d 678, 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Castillo v.
State, 739 S.W.2d 280, 293 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Nethery v. State, 692 S.W.2d
686, 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498, 500 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1970); Placker v. State, 350 S.W.2d 546, 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961);
Davis v. State, 308 S.W.2d 880, 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957); Stockwell v. State,
301 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957); Peterson v. State, 247 S.W.2d 110,
14
111 (1951). However, Odom did not take a polygraph, so the result is not the
matter that the State sought to place before the jury. Nevertheless, even when the
result of a polygraph is not disclosed, the Court of Criminal Appeals treats
questioning a witness about whether the witness took a polygraph as error. See
Reed v. State, 522 S.W.2d 466, 468-69 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975); Hannon v. State,
475 S.W.2d 800, 802-03 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Renesto, 452 S.W.2d at 500;
Washburn v. State, 318 S.W.2d 627, 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 1958). The hostility to
evidence about polygraphs appears to be based on the view by courts that juries
function better than polygraphs at producing reliable results, and the concern that
juries might use evidence about polygraphs, a test viewed by courts as unreliable,
as highly relevant and persuasive regarding a person’s credibility as related to the
defendant’s guilt. See Russell v. State, 798 S.W.2d 632, 635 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth 1990, no pet.); Banda v. State, 727 S.W.2d 679, 682 (Tex. App.—Austin
1987, no pet.).
In Odom’s case, the danger of the evidence about the polygraph concerns its
potential to indelibly impress the jury that Odom was guilty, when the purpose for
which the evidence was being offered was to impeach his statement that he fully
cooperated with police. In Odom’s trial, the State offered the evidence about the
polygraph to impeach Odom’s statement that he had done all that the police asked
15
him to do. The Court of Criminal Appeals opinion in Nichols v. State, 378 S.W.2d
335 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964), is instructive regarding whether the admission of the
evidence about the polygraph in Odom’s case was error. In Nichols, the prosecutor
asked a prosecution witness to tell the jury, without disclosing the results, whether
she had submitted to a polygraph. Id. at 336. The witness indicated that she had
taken a polygraph. Id. In reversing the defendant’s conviction, the Court of
Criminal Appeals found the question harmful because the question implied that the
witness would have passed the polygraph even though the result was never
admitted. Id. In Nichols, the trial court instructed the jury that it could not consider
the evidence about the polygraph for any purpose, but even the trial court’s
instruction was insufficient to overcome the harm resulting from the prosecutor’s
question. Id. at 337-38. The Nichols Court stated: “We think it fair to observe that
the only reason that anyone would possibly take a lie detector test would be to
determine whether or not they were telling the truth.” Id. at 337; see also Russell,
798 S.W.2d at 635 (“Clearly, any reference to polygraph or lie detector tests is
improper even when the test result is not disclosed.”). In Odom’s case, the jury was
given no guidance about the limited purpose for which the evidence was offered,
and there was no evidence before the jury discussing the reliability (or
unreliability) of polygraphs.
16
In final argument in Odom’s case, the prosecutor suggested that Odom
refused the polygraph because the test result would have revealed that he was
guilty. In other words, like Nichols, the record shows that the true purpose of the
State’s offer was not limited to impeaching Odom’s statement. Instead, the
manifest purpose for the polygraph evidence was to imply the result, that Odom
would have failed the test had it been taken. The danger of unfair prejudice
regarding evidence about polygraphs is particularly acute when the evidence
before the jury contains no testimony about the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of
polygraphs. While the State did not spend a significant amount of time at trial
developing the evidence, the potential the evidence has to impress juries in an
irrational and indelible manner in Odom’s case was very high given the fact that he
chose to testify during the guilt phase of his trial. In Odom’s case, the danger of
admitting the evidence includes the risk that the jury would rely largely if not
entirely on Odom’s refusal to take the test when evaluating the credibility of his
testimony.
The trial court was also required to weigh the degree to which the State
needed the evidence to contradict Odom’s testimony that he had been fully
cooperative with the police. On this record, testimony indicating that Odom had
not been fully cooperative with the investigation by the police was cumulative of
17
other testimony about that fact that was already before the jury when Odom
testified. Before Odom testified, Keneste and Detective Hogge had testified that
Odom became uncooperative as the investigation into Jakyra’s death developed.
The record does not show that the State had a significant need of the evidence
about the polygraph to establish that Odom had not fully cooperated with the
investigation conducted by the police into Jakyra’s death. Although the State did
not spend a great deal of time developing the evidence about the polygraph, we
agree with Odom that the testimony was significantly more prejudicial than it was
probative. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the
prosecutor to question Odom about the request by police that he take a polygraph.
Cf. Martinez v. State, 728 S.W.2d 360, 362 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (allowing
impeachment when a defendant leaves a false impression as to his criminal record
where he “voluntarily testifies as to his prior criminal record without any
prompting or maneuvering on the part of the State[]”); Nethery, 692 S.W.2d at 700
(holding that the results of a polygraph test are not admissible at trial for any
purpose, whether offered on behalf of the State or the defendant); Bates v. State,
587 S.W.2d 121, 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (explaining that when a witness is
cross-examined on a collateral matter, a matter on which the cross-examining party
would not be allowed to prove if the testimony were to be offered as a part of its
18
case in chief, “the cross-examining party cannot then contradict the witness”);
Mauldin v. State, 308 S.W.2d 36, 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957) (explaining that
impeachment not allowed where the cross-examination concerns an immaterial
matter).
Given our conclusion that the testimony about the polygraph should not have
been admitted, we must determine whether the error was harmless. Tex. R. App. P.
44.2(b) (requiring the court, on appeal, to disregard errors, defects, irregularities, or
variances that do not affect substantial rights). An error in admitting evidence is
generally reviewed as non-constitutional error, so the error must be disregarded
(and the case affirmed) unless the error “‘has a substantial and injurious effect or
influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’” Russell v. State, 155 S.W.3d 176, 179
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (quoting Simpson v. State, 119 S.W.3d 262, 266 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2003)). We will not overturn a verdict in a case of non-constitutional
error where the record as a whole shows that “the error did not influence the jury,
or influenced the jury only slightly.” Schutz v. State, 63 S.W.3d 442, 444 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2001) (citing Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex. Crim. App.
2000)). “In considering the potential to harm, the focus is not on whether the
outcome of the trial was proper despite the error, but whether the error had a
substantial or injurious effect or influence on the jury’s verdict.” Barshaw v. State,
19
342 S.W.3d 91, 93-94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). An appellate court must, however,
reverse a trial court’s decision to admit evidence if the evidence should not have
been admitted and if, after reviewing the record as a whole, the court has “grave
doubt that the result of the trial was free from the substantial effect of the error.”
Id. at 94.
With the exception of the testimony of J.W., the State’s evidence against
Odom was largely circumstantial. Some of the circumstantial evidence the jury
likely utilized to reach its conclusion that Odom was guilty, beyond reasonable
doubt, included:
• The evidence showing that Odom was one of Jakyra’s primary
caregivers and that he was the only caregiver who was uncooperative
with the investigation by the police;
• The medical evidence showing that Jakyra died around 4:30 a.m.,
over an hour before Odom took Jakyra to the nursing home with
Keneste;
• The medical evidence showing that Jakyra’s new injury probably
occurred within forty-eight hours of her death, and that Jakyra was in
Odom’s care during portions of that period;
20
• The evidence that J.W. told his grandmother and Khristella that he
saw Odom strike his sister before Jakyra’s funeral;
• The evidence showing that Odom appeared surprised when he woke
up at the nursing home around 7:00 a.m., claiming he discovered at
that time that Jakyra was not breathing, given medical evidence
showing that Jakyra probably died around 4:30 a.m.;
• Medical evidence showing that Jakyra was exhibiting signs of rigor
mortis when initially treated by the paramedic at the nursing home.
Much of the conflicting evidence the jury could have chosen to believe was
dependent on the jury’s assessment of Odom’s credibility. For instance, Odom was
not the only adult around Jakyra in the forty-eight hour period before she died, so
he is not the only adult who could have caused the injuries. Odom’s testimony
about when he discovered Jakyra’s death also depended on the jury evaluation of
his credibility. The medical evidence that Jakyra died at approximately 4:30 a.m.
was based on a statement made by the doctor who pronounced Jakyra’s death, but
that doctor did not testify during Odom’s trial, and the record contains nothing to
explain how approximate that doctor’s estimate was regarding the hour of Jakyra’s
death. While Dr. Brown testified that he agreed with the hospital doctor’s estimate
regarding Jakyra’s time of death, he acknowledged that Jakyra might have still
21
been alive around 6:20 a.m. 7 Moreover, the record is not clear about when Odom
first arrived at the nursing home, but Keneste testified that her normal shift started
at 6:00 a.m. In other words, without the evidence about the polygraph, we harbor
doubts about whether the jury would have viewed the evidence placing the death at
4:30 as likely, given other evidence in the record from those at the nursing home,
including J.W., indicating that Jakyra was still alive when she was there. Odom’s
refusal to take a polygraph, in our view, significantly influenced the manner the
jury went about its job of evaluating Odom’s credibility.
Given J.W.’s inconsistent account about Odom’s role in causing Jakyra’s
injury, we harbor grave doubt about whether the testimony regarding the polygraph
had no influence or but slight influence in making the jury more likely to accept
J.W.’s trial testimony that he saw Odom strike Jakyra in the stomach. In our view,
given the evidence that Odom refused the polygraph, the jury was much more
likely to accept J.W.’s testimony without seriously questioning why he failed to
give this information during his first interview about the circumstances of Jakyra’s
death. In summary, given the quality of the direct and circumstantial evidence as a
7
When asked how long Jakyra had been dead before being pronounced dead
at 7:20 a.m. in the emergency room, Dr. Brown testified “I can’t be exact about
it[,]” and he indicated that he would put the actual death at “about that time.” Dr.
Noble, the State’s expert, did not express an opinion regarding the hour that he felt
Jakyra likely died.
22
whole, we have grave doubts about whether that testimony about the polygraph
had no significant influence on the jury’s view of the evidence admitted at trial
relevant to Odom’s guilt. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the evidence
about the polygraph diminished the jury’s role in assessing the credibility of the
direct and circumstantial evidence relevant to Odom’s guilt. See United States v.
Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 313 (1998) (“By its very nature, polygraph evidence may
diminish the jury’s role in making credibility determinations.”).
Considering the evidence as a whole, we conclude the evidence about the
request by police for a polygraph played a substantial and injurious role that
influenced the jury’s verdict. See Russell, 155 S.W.3d at 179. The harmful impact
of the inadmissible testimony was driven home by the prosecutor, when in closing
she argued that Odom refused to take a polygraph because he was guilty. See
Scheffer, 523 U.S. at 312-13 (noting that polygraph evidence threatens “the [jury’s]
core function of making credibility determinations in criminal trials”). Given the
indelible impression the evidence made on this jury after considering the record as
a whole, the lack of consensus on the reliability of polygraphs generally, the
manner the State used the evidence in final argument, and the jurisprudence from
the Court of Criminal Appeals indicating that such tests are not admissible for any
purpose, we hold that the trial court’s error in admitting the testimony about the
23
request for the polygraph was harmful. See Ross v. State, 133 S.W.3d 618, 626
(Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (noting the lack of consensus on the reliability of
polygraph tests); Tennard, 802 S.W.2d at 683 (noting that “[t]he existence and
results of a polygraph examination are inadmissible for all purposes”). Because the
admission of the testimony was harmful, we sustain issue two and hold that Odom
is entitled to a new trial. See Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 94.
Conclusion
Because issue two is dispositive, we need not address issue three. See Tex.
R. App. P. 47.1. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment, we grant
Odom’s request for a new trial, and we remand the cause to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
___________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on November 4, 2014
Opinion Delivered November 18, 2015
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
24