# Reed v. State

> Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · June 1, 2001 · 48 S.W.3d 856

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9758607

## Case

- **Full name:** Jerrell S. REED, Jr., Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
- **Decided:** June 1, 2001
- **Citations:** 48 S.W.3d 856; 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 3630; 2001 WL 586744
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Grant
- **Judges:** Cornelius, Grant, Ross
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9758607

## Opinion text

GRANT, Justice,
concurring.
One of the greatest responsibilities of our judicial system is the fair and just sentencing of those convicted. Whether it be the jury or the trial court that assesses the punishment, all factors should be fully considered. Because sentencing involves the life, or a portion of the life of the individual being sentenced, the sentencing process should not be regarded as a waste of judicial time and resources. Courts should take care in exercising fairness in admitting evidence that is relevant both pro and con in this proceeding and is informative for determining the appropriate punishment.
I agree with the majority opinion that evidence regarding polygraph tests is not and should not be admissible to establish the truthfulness or untruthfulness of testimony or statements. However, if the terms of community supervision are admissible in the proceeding and if the evidence shows that there is a possibility or probability that the convicted party will be required as a part of the terms of his community supervision to take polygraph tests, this should be admissible.
We should avoid adding new legal fictions to the law, and allowing some of the terms of community supervision to be known by the jury and to deny others is no more than a legal fiction. If this procedure is deemed important enough by the State of Texas to administer it to a person on community supervision, then this factor should be revealed to a sentencing jury. This does not mean that the evidence should be opened up to the reliability or unreliability of this type of testing, but this should not preclude the jury from being permitted to have knowledge that such testing is given.
I do not take the position that this amounts to reversible error in this case, but I do urge the courts to be consistent in allowing all of the terms of community supervision or anticipated terms of community supervision to be admitted. By anticipated terms and conditions of community supervision, I mean those that a community supervision officer testifies as likely to be a part of the terms in the type of case on trial based on the usual and customary terms and conditions in that court.
I respectfully concur on this issue.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9758607. Public record. Not legal advice.