Reid, Duane, PD-1390-15

Duane Reid pleaded guilty to third-degree felony theft and waived a jury; the trial court deferred punishment pending a Presentence Investigation Report (PSI).
At the punishment hearing the State introduced the PSI (an ex parte report prepared by probation staff); Reid made no objection at trial to the PSI’s admission or use.
The trial court stated it had considered all relevant matters, denied probation, and sentenced Reid to eight years’ confinement.
Reid appealed, arguing the admission/use of the PSI violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights because it contained testimonial out-of-court statements without cross-examination.
The Second Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Reid forfeited the Confrontation Clause complaint by failing to object at trial; Reid sought discretionary review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Reid)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether admission/use of a PSI at punishment violated the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation	PSI contains testimonial, out-of-court statements used to prove misconduct at punishment; admitting it without witness testimony or cross-examination violates Crawford and Russeau	Reid forfeited the confrontation claim by not objecting at trial; trial court would have overruled any objection under existing precedent (Smith, Stringer), so error is unpreserved	Second Court of Appeals: complaint forfeited for appeal because Reid failed to object; affirmed sentence
Whether failure to object should be excused because objection would have been futile under then‑existing law	Objection would have been non‑futile: PSI statements are testimonial and Russeau and Crawford support exclusion; trial counsel shouldn’t be penalized where constitutional rule should protect defendants	Existing Texas CCA decisions (Smith, Stringer) allowed PSIs to be used at non‑capital sentencing without Crawford protections; therefore objection would have been futile	Court below applied preservation rules; petitioner urges the higher court revisit Stringer/Smith but review was denied at the appellate panel level

Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1965) (Confrontation Clause applies to the states)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay inadmissible absent unavailability and prior cross-examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (distinguishes testimonial from nontestimonial statements by primary purpose)
Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reports containing testimonial statements inadmissible at punishment without confrontation)
Smith v. State, 227 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (held extraneous misconduct in PSI could be considered at punishment)
Stringer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (held Crawford protections do not apply to PSI used at non‑capital sentencing)