Leonard, William Thomas
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1598
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Leonard pled guilty to injury to a child in 2004 and was placed on deferred-adjudication community supervision for five years.
- Terms required completion of sex offender treatment and counseling, with costs, and to complete within three years with at least one-third per year.
- A polygraph requirement stated Leonard must submit to and show no deception on polygraph examinations; nonpayment of some supervision fees was also alleged.
- In October 2008 the State sought adjudication for violations: failure to complete treatment (1a and 1b) and deception shown on polygraphs (2); the third count (fees) was later waived.
- At adjudication, Leonard denied true regarding counts 1 and 3; Strain testified he discharged Leonard from treatment due to dishonesty, based on polygraphs, which defense argued were inadmissible.
- The trial court ruled 1a true and 1b false, adjudicated Leonard guilty of injury to a child, and sentenced seven years in confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Rule 703 admit expert reliance on inadmissible polygraph data? | State argues Rule 703 allows reliance on admissible data; polygraph data can underpin expert opinion. | Leonard argues polygraph results are inherently unreliable and inadmissible under Romero and related precedent. | Rule 703 cannot admit opinions based solely on unreliable polygraph data. |
| Can a 'show no deception' polygraph condition justify admitting polygraph results? | State contends the condition aids enforcement of supervision and thus admissible evidence. | Leonard contends the condition does not justify admitting unreliable polygraph results. | No, the condition does not by itself justify admitting unreliable polygraph evidence. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by relying on a third party's discretion to adjudicate? | State contends the court properly adjudicated based on the violation of a supervision condition. | Leonard argues due process requires independent, reliable basis; third-party discretion is improper. | Yes, the court abused its discretion because the basis was the therapist's reliance on inadmissible polygraph results. |
Key Cases Cited
- Romero v. State, 493 S.W.2d 206 (Tex. Cr. App. 1973) (polygraph results inadmissible for all purposes)
- Nichols v. State, 378 S.W.2d 335 (Tex. Cr. App. 1964) (polygraph results not admissible; prejudicial impact)
- Peterson v. State, 247 S.W.2d 110 (Tex. Cr. App. 1952) (lie detector evidence not admitted; early view on reliability)
- McKay v. State, 235 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. Cr. App. 1951) (lie detector tests generally inadmissible)
- Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (gatekeeping reliability standard for scientific expert testimony)