THE STATE OF TEXAS § § § § § v. § Cause No. PD-1600-15 § § § § STEPHEN DEMOND ODOM, §

Appellee §

************************************************************** 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 

## REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE NINTH COURT OF APPEALS

JEFFERSON COUNTY ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
DAVID W. BARLOW ATTORNEY AT LAW EDISON PLAZA 350 PINE STREET, SUITE 315 BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77701 TELEPHONE: (409) 838-2168 FACSIMILE: (409) 838-3145 david.barlow@davidwbarlow.com TEXAS BAR NO. 00793305 PD-1600-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 12/21/2015 11:24:21 AM Accepted 12/21/2015 12:45:33 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKI DENTI F I CATI ON OF THE PARTI ES

Pu rs uan t to Tex

. R. Ap p
. Pro c 6 8

. 4 ( a ) , a c o m p l et e l i s t o f t he n am es o f al l
i n t eres t ed p art i es is p ro v i d ed b el o w s o t h e m em b ers o f t h i s Ho n o rab l e Co u rt m ay at

o n ce d et erm in e wh et h er t h ey a r e d i s q u al ifi ed t o s erv e o r s h ou l d recu s e t h em s el v es fro m p art i ci p at i n g i n t he d eci s i o n o f t he cas e. Ap p el l ee: St ep h en D. Od o m , # 1 9 1 1 5 86 Fren ch Ro b ert s o n Un i t 1 2 07 1 FM 3 5 2 2 Ab il en e, Tex as 7 9 6 01
Defen s e At t o rn ey s o n t h e Tri al : Au d wi n Sam u el an d Sean Vi l l ery -Sam u el 1 9 65 Park St reet Beau m on t , Tex as 7 7 7 0 1
Defen s e At t o rn ey

o n t h e Ap p eal : Dav i d W . Barl o w

Ed i s o n Pl aza 3 5 0 Pi n e St reet , Su i t e 3 1 5 Beau m on t , Tex as 7 7 7 0 1
Pro s ecu to r o n t h e Tri al : Li nd s ey Sco t t J effers o n Co u n t y

Co u rt h o u s e 1 0 85 Pearl Beau m on t , Tex as 7 7 7 0 1
Cri m i n al Di s tri ct At t o rn ey : Ro b ert J . “ Bo b ” W o rt h am J effers o n Co u n t y

Co u rt h o u s e 1 0 85 Pearl Beau m on t , Tex as 7 7 7 0 1
Tri al J u d g e Pres i d i n g : J o h n B. St ev en s , J r. J effers o n Co u n t y

Co u rt h o u s e 1 0 85 Pearl Beau m on t , Tex as 7 7 7 0 1TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i
STATEM ENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUM ENT .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i
STATEM ENT OF THE CASE .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
STATEM ENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
STATE’ S GROUND FOR REVIEW

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

STATE’S GRO U N D F O R R E V IE W N O
. O N E : Th e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s ( sic ) o pinion e r

r one ously p recl u d es t h e St at e fro m o fferi n g i m p each m ent ev i den ce u nd er T ex
. Ru l e E v i d

. (s ic) 6 1 1(b ) i n al l i n s t an ces wh ere t h e ev i den ce co n s i s t s o f t h e d efen d an t’ s fai l u re t o t ak e a p o l y g rap h t es t

.. 5
STATE’S GROUN D F O R REVI EW NO. TW O: Th e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s (s i c) o p i n i o n effect i v el y erro n eo u s ly ren d ers an y m en t i o n o f a p ol y g rap h (ev en in i n s t an ces wh ere t he r e was n o p o l y g rap h ex am ) as erro r per s e, ev en wh en t h e q u es t i o n is as k ed t o co rrect a f a l s e i m p res s io n an d p erju ro u s (s i c) st at em en t m a d e by a d efen d an t d u ri n g t ri al

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
ARGUM ENT .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
PRAYER .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7

iAUTHORI TI ES

CASES PAGE
Ca d e v. St a t e , 2 0 1 5 T ex
. Cri m
. Ap p
. Un p u b

. LEXIS 15 6 2 0 1 5 )(n o t d es i g n at ed fo r p u b l i cat i o n ) ..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
Ca s t il l o v. S t a te, 73 9 S.W .2 d 2 8 0 (Tex . Cri m
. Ap p.1 9 8 7 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Nes bi t v. S t a t e, 22 7 S.W .3 d 6 4 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 7 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Net h er y v. S t at e, 6 9 2 S.W .2 d 6 8 6 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p .1 9 8 5).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 , 1 3
Ni ch ol s v. S t a t e, 3 7 8 S.W .2 d 3 3 5 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p. 1 9 64 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
Pet er s o n v. S t a t e, 1 5 7 Tex . Cr. R. 2 55 , 2 4 7 S.W

. 2 d 1 1 0 (1 9 51 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Ten na r d v. S t a t e, 8 0 2 S.W .2 d 6 7 8 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 99 0 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
U.S . v. Al l a r d , 4 64 F.3 d 5 2 9 (5 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 6).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4

iiSTATEMENT REGARDI NG ORAL ARGUMENT

Th e g ro u n d s fo r rev i ew herei n ad van ced b y t h e St at e o f Tex as are wel l s et t l ed
i n T ex as ju ri s p ru d en ce. Oral arg u m en t wi l l n ot b e hel p fu l t o t h e Co u rt

. Ho wev er, as
t h e St at e o f Tex as h as req ues t ed o ral arg u m en t i n i ts Pet i ti o n , O d o m h ereb y req u es t s

o ral arg u m en t i n res p o n s e.

iiiTHE STATE OF TEXAS § § § § § v . § Ca us e No . PD-1 60 0 -1 5 § § § § STEPHEN DEMOND ODOM, §

Ap

p el l ee § * * * ** * * * * ** * * * * * ** * * * * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUS TIN, TEX

AS 

## R EPLY IN O PPO S ITIO N TO STA TE’ S PETITIO N FO R D IS C R ETIO N A R Y R EV IEW FR O M TH E N IN TH C O UR T O F A PPEA LS

J EFFER S O N C O U N T Y

************************************************************** TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
COM ES NOW St ep h en D em o n d Od o m , Defen d an t i n cau se n u m b er 1 3 -1 6 3 0 1
i n t he Jeffers o n Co u nt y Cri m i nal Di s t ri ct Co u rt , J o hn B. St ev en s , J r., J ud g e Pres i d i n g,

an d Ap p el l an t b efo re t he Ni n th Co u rt o f Ap p eal s , an d res p ect fu l l y s u b m i t s th i s rep l y
t o t h e Co urt o f Cri m i n al Ap p eal s i n res p on s e t o t h e Pet i t io n fo r Di s cret i o n ary Rev i ew fi led by t h e St at e o f Tex as h erei n
.
1STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Ap p e l l a n t w as i n d i ct ed b y a J effers o n Co un t y g ran d ju ry i n a m u l t i -co u nt i n d i ct m en t f

o r t h e o f f e n s e of i n ju ry to a ch il d

. A p p el lan t p l ead n o t gu i lt y t o b o th

co u nt s , an d t ri al was to a ju ry
. Fo l l o wi n g t h e p res en t at i o n o f e v i den ce, an d aft er
arg u m en t s o f co u ns el an d del i b erat i o n s , t h e ju ry fo u n d Ap p el l an t gu i lt y o f co u n t o n e

o f t h e i n d i ct m en t

. Aft er t he pres en t at i on o f pu n is h m en t ev id en ce, an d aft er f u rt h er
arg u m en t s o f co u ns el an d del i b erat i o n s , th e ju ry as s es s ed p u n i s h m e n t at i n carcerat i o n i n t he Tex as Dep art m en t o f Cri m i n al J us t i ce fo r l i fe.

2STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HI STORY

Aft er co n v i ct i o n in t h e t ri al co urt , Ap p el l an t p erfect ed No t i ce o f Ap p eal t o t h e Ni n th Co u rt o f Ap peal s
. T h e Co u rt fo u n d erro r, rev ers ed t h e co n v i ct i on an d sen t en ce,

an d rem an d e d t h e c a u s e to t h e t ri al co u rt fo r re-t ri al

. Th e St at e fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r reh eari ng , wh i ch was ov erru l ed b y t h e Co u rt of Ap p eal s. Th e St at e t h en fi l ed i t s Pet i t io n fo r Di s cret io n ary Rev i ew wi t h t h i s Ho n orab l e Co urt

.

3STATE’S GROUNDS FOR REVI EW
GROUN D F O R REVI EW NO. ONE: Th e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s (s ic) o p in i o n erro neo u sl y p recl u des t h e St at e fro m o fferi n g i m

pe a c hm en t ev i d en ce u nd er Tex

. Ru l e Ev i d

. (s i c) 6 11 (b ) i n al l i n s t an ces wh ere t he ev i d en ce co n si s ts o f th e d efen d an t ’ s fai l ure t o t ak e a p o l y g rap h t es t

. GROUND FOR REVI EW NO. TW O: Th e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s (s i c) o p i n i o n effect i v el y erro n eo u s l y

ren d ers an y m en t io n o f a p o l y g rap h (ev en i n i ns t an ces wh ere t here w as n o p o l y g rap h ex am ) as erro r p er s e, ev en wh en t h e q u es t i o n i s as k ed t o co rrect a fa l s e i m p res s i o n an d p erju ro u s (s i c) s t at em en t m ad e b y

a d efen d an t d u ri n g t ri al

.

4A RGUMENT
STATE’S GROUND FOR REVI E W N O. ONE: T he Co u rt o f Ap p eal s (s i c) o p in i o n e r r o n eo u sl y p recl u d es th e S t a te f ro m o fferi n g i m

p each m en t ev id en ce un d er Tex

. Ru le Ev i d

. (s i c ) 6 1 1(b ) i n al l i ns t an ces wh ere t h e ev i d en ce co n s i s t s o f t h e d efen d an t ’ s fai l ure to t ak e a p o l y grap h t es t

. STATE’S GROU N D F OR R EVI EW NO. TW O: T he Co u rt o f Ap p eal s (s i c) o p i n i o n effect i vel y erro n eo us l y re n d e r s an y m en t i o n o f a p o ly g rap h (ev en i n i n s tan ces wh ere t h ere was n o p o ly g rap h ex am ) as erro r p er s e, ev en wh en t h e q ues ti o n i s as k ed t o co rr e c t a fal s e i m p res s i o n an d p erju ro u s (s i c) s t at em en t m ad e b y a d efen d an t d u ri n g t ri al

. Th e g rav am en o f t h e St at e’ s t heo ry u n d er wh i ch i t as k s t h i s Ho n o rab l e Co u rt
t o ex erci s e i t s d i s cret i o n h erei n i s bas ed u p o n an erro n eo u s, co n cl us o ry p rem i s e: t h e Od o m l i ed d uri ng h i s t ri al

. Th e t ri al b e l o w w a s t o a ju ry
. Th e ju ry was t h e fact
fi nd er, n o t t h e St at e o f Tex as
. Th e v e raci t y o f Od o m , ju st as an y o t h er wi t n es s , i n cl u d i n g t h o s e t es t i fy i n g fo r t h e St at e o f Tex as , was t h e p urv i ew o f t h e j u ry
. Th e ju ry i s wh o d eci d ed w h o l ied (i f an y o n e), wh o d i d n o t l i e, an d w h o m t o b el i ev e. Ho wev e r , t h e St at e w ou l d h av e t h i s Ho n o rab l e Co u rt bel i ev e t h at it s co n cl u s o ry

o p i n i o n t h at Od o m li ed was a fact , t h at t h e Ni n t h Co u rt o f Ap peal s s h o u l d h av e k n o wn t h at i t was a fact , an d t h at , t h erefo re, t h e ap p el l at e co u rt erro n eo u s l y h el d t h at
t h e is s u e o f wh et h er Od o m was “ u n co o p erat i v e” w it h l aw en fo rcem en t co u ld n o t b e i m p each ed wi t h p o l y g rap h ev i den ce. Gl ari n g ly ab s en t fro m t h e St at e’ s p et i t i o n i s an y

5s u p p ort o r au t h o ri t y fo r i t s arg u m en t. Th e St at e co nt en d ed b efo re t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s t h at t h e i s s ue o f a p o l y g rap h

was n o t b ei n g o ffered b y t h e St at e t o s h o w t h at Od o m di d n o t s ub m i t t o a p o l y g rap h,
b u t rat h er t o im

p each h i m b y s h o wi n g th at h e was u n co o p erat i v e fo r n ot s u b m i t t i n g
t o a p ol y g rap h

. Th e ap p el l at e co u rt h el d t h at t h ere was a p l et ho ra o f ev i den ce b efo re
t h e ju ry al read y reg ard i n g t h e co o p erat i o n o f Od o m wi th l aw en fo rcem en t

. Th e Co u rt

o f A p p eal s hel d t h at th e p reju d i c i a l e f f ect o f al l owi n g p o l y g rap h tes t im o n y was i m m en s el y o u t wei g h ed b y an y p ro b at i v e v al u e, ev en i f i t was o ffered as i m p each m en t

ev i d en ce. Th e St at e arg ues i n i t s p et it i o n t h at , i n effect , it s h o u ld h av e b een al l o wed

t o i m p each Od om w i th “ t ru t h fu l ” i n fo rm at i o n es tab l i s h i ng Od o m co m m i t t ed p erju ry
. W h i l e t h e St at e i s en t i t l ed t o i t s o wn o p i n io n , i t i s n o t en t it l ed t o i t s o wn fact s
. Th e ju ry d et erm i nes t he fact s herei n , n o t t h e St at e o f Tex as
. Th e fal l acy o f t h e St at e’ s
arg u m en t i s i t s rel i an ce o n i t s o wn arb i t rary co n cl u s i o n t o s u p p o rt i t s p rem i s e. It i s

s i m p l y b o o t s t rap p i ng i t s d es i red co n cl u s i o n as t h e b as i s fo r i ts p et i t io n
. It h as l o n g b een s et tl ed t h at t h e ex i s t e n ce a nd r es u l ts o f a p o l y g rap h

ex am i n at i o n are i n ad m i ss i b l e fo r a l l p u rp o s es i n Tex as , ev en i f t h e St at e a n d t h e
ap p el l an t ag ree to i t s ad m i s s i bi l i t y
. Nes b it v. S t at e, 22 7 S.W

. 3 d 6 4 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p. 2 0 0 7 ); Ten n ar d v. St a t e , 80 2 S.W .2 d 6 7 8 , 6 8 3 (Tex

. Cri m
. A p p
. 19 9 0); Ca s t i l l o v. S t a t e, 7 3 9 S.W .2 d 2 8 0 , 2 9 3 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 8 7 ); Net h er y v. S t a t e, 6 92 S.W .2 d 6 8 6

6( T e x
. C r i m
. Ap p .1 98 5 ); Pet er s o n v. S t a t e, 1 5 7 Tex

. Cr. R. 2 5 5, 2 4 7 S.W .2 d 1 1 0 (1 9 5 1) (Em

p h as i s ad ded ). Th e St at e s i m p l y i g no res t h e fact t hat p o l y grap h t es t i m o ny i s i n ad m i s s i b le fo r a l l p u rp o s es
. Im p each m en t i s a p u rp o s e. T h e reco rd b el o w s h o ws
t h e t e s t im o n y reg ard i n g t h e p o l y g rap h

. Ap p el l an t w as t es t i fy i ng in hi s o wn b eh al f

an d was b ei n g cro s s ex am i n ed b y t h e p ro s ecu t o r as refl ect ed b eg i n n in g at R.R. V-7 9,

t o -wi t :

“ THE STATE: Q. On ce t h e p o l i ce t o l d y o u t h at t h is

was ch i l d ab u se, t h a t s o m e o n e h ad h u rt J ak y ra an d th at ’ s wh at k il l ed h er, were y o u i n t eres t ed i n fi n di n g o u t wh o h ad
d on e t h at ?
APPELLANT: A. Of co u rs e. Yes , m a’ am
. Q. An d y o u b ecam e aware t h at t h ey su s p ect ed
y ou , ri g h t ?
A. Yes , m a’ am
. Q. Th ey

t o l d y o u t hat , d i d n ’ t t hey ?
A. Yes , m a’ am
. Q. An d w ere y o u in t eres t ed i n h el p i n g t o el i m in at e y o u rs el f as a s u s p ect ?
A. W as I i n t eres t ed ?

7Q. Yeah . Di d y o u wan t t o el i m i n at e y o u rs el f as

a s us p ect ?
A. Yes , m a’ am
. Q. Bu t y o u d i d at s o m e p o i n t b eco m e

u nco o p erat i v e wi t h t h e p o l i ce? Do y o u d i s p u t e t hat ?
A. No , m a’ am
. I d i d n ’ t b eco m e u n co o p erat i v e. I d i d e v ery t h i n g t h ey as k ed m e t o
. I was n o t nev er

u nco o p erat i v e. Q. At s o m e p o i n t , d i d y o u s t o p ret u rn i n g t h ei r cal l s ?
A. No , I n ev er s t o p ped ret u rn i ng t h ei r cal l s. I

t al k ed t o Li eu ten an t Cu rl an d ex p l ai n ed to h im w h at m y l awy er t ol d m e t o d o an d t h at m y l awy er wo u l d g et i n t o u ch
wi t h m e. THE COURT: Yo u -al l co m e o n u p h ere.”

Th e t ri al co urt t h en hel d t h at th e al l eg at i o n t hat Ap p el l an t h ad refu s ed t o s u bm i t
t o a p o l y g rap h ex am in at i o n “ ev en befo re h e h ired an at t o rn ey ” w o u l d b e ad m i s s i b l e b ecau s e, acco rd i n g t o t h e t ri al co u rt , Ap pel l an t “ o p en ed h i s own d o o r t h ere.” Th e

8t ri al co u rt at t em p t ed to ju st i fy i t s cl earl y erro n eo u s ru l i n g as refl ect ed at R.R. V-8 1,

t o -wi t :

“ THE COURT: It ’ s al l o wab l e a t t h i s s t ag e. He

v o l u n t eered t h at s tat em en t (t h at Ap p el lan t di d ev ery t h i n g
t h ey as ked m e t o ). I th i n k h e p u t h i m s el f i n t o it

. H e’ s

o pen ed hi s o wn d oo r t h ere. I was n’ t g o i n g t o l et i t i n , b u t
I’ m cert ai nl y n ot g o i n g t o l et h i m v o l u n t eer s t at em en t s aft er h e an s w ered t he q u es t i o n th at m i sl ead s t h e ju ry
. I kn o w
y ou w o rk ed o n th at b ef o r e b u t h e can ’ t v o lu n teer an ad d i t io n al st at em en t ; an d t h at o p en ed t h e d o o r, i n al l
fai rn es s , t o ev ery th i n g
. I d o n ’ t l i k e t h i s wh o l e s u b ject

m at t er, b u t h e can ’ t m ak e a s t at em en t i f it ’ s n o t an accu rat e

o ne. He h ad g i v en an an s wer, an d t h en h e wen t fu rt h er.

. . . . Th e j u ry can ’ t b e m i s lead

. Th e wh o l e t h i n g i s t h e ru l es o f

ev i den ce are p u rs u i n g t he t ru t h ; b u t wh en h e m ak es t hat

s t at em en t an d i t ’ s p ro ffered t h a t t h at co n t rad i ct s wh at he ju s t s ai d , t h en i n al l fai rn es s , t h e ju ry i s en t i t l ed t o kn o w wh at i t i s
. I d o n ’ t l i k e p o ly g rap hs b u t , n o net h el es s, wh en

9h e m ak es - - he an s wered t h e q u es ti o n
. It s ti l l d i d n’ t o p en
t h e d o o r. It was h i s n ex t s t at em en t .” Ap p el l an t o b

ject ed t o i t s a d m i s s i o n b as ed u po n Ru l e 4 0 3 , Tex

. R. E v i d

. Th e
t ri al co urt o v erru l ed Ap p el l an t ’ s o bject i on s t at i n g t h at :

“ W el l , i f t hey as k ed h i m t o t ak e a p o ly g rap h t h at I wo u l d n ’ t h av e o t h erwi s e i n t ro d u ced o r al l owed th e a d m i s s i o n o f,
wh en h e m ak es t h at l as t s t at em en t , t h at i s n o t a f ai r,

accu rat e, tru th fu l , h o n es t s t at em en t ; an d h e v o l u nt eered

t h at . St at e h as an o p p o rt u n it y t o res p o n d”
Th e t ri al co u rt fu rt h er at t em p t ed t o ju s ti fy i t s erro neo u s in t ro d u ct i o n o f t h e

ex i s t en ce as refl ect ed at R.R. V-8 3 , t o -wi t:

“ THE COURT: No w, l e t m e ad d o n e ot h er g u i d i n g
p ri n ci p l e t h at t h is Co u rt lo o k s at an d it ’ s fo un d u nd er Art i cl e 1 01 o f t h e Tex as Ru l es o f Ev id en ce or u nd er 1 0 2

. Fo r p urp o s e an d co n s t ru ct io n o f t h e r u l e s , t h e ru l es are

co n s t ru ed t o s ecu re fai rn es s , el i m in at i o n o f u n j u s t i fi ab l e

ex p en s e an d d el ay , p ro m o t i o n o f g ro wt h an d d ev el o p m en t

o f th e l aw o f e v i d e n c e - - an d h ere wh at I fi n d to m e th e

m o s t i m p o r t a n t

- - t o t h e en d t h at t h e t ru th m ay be

10as cert ai ned

. W el l, t h at ’ s n o t wh at we’ re d o i n g i f we d o n ’ t fi n i s h t h at t h o u g h t t h at ’ s b een p ut o u t th ere fro m a

v ol un t eered s t at em en t t h at aft er h i s - - ag ai n , he co m p l et ed
h is an swer, an d th en h e v en t u red i n to t h e u n ch art ed wat er

o n h i s o wn o f t h at s t at em en t . I d o n ’ t l ik e i t

.

. . . . W e’ re n o t g o i ng t o en d t h at b ecau se, t ru l y , as we al l ag ree, i t i s ap p a r e n t l y n o t fact u al an d n ot a t ru t h fu l s t at em en t
t h at ’ s befo re t h e j u ry
. Al l ri g h t

. An d i t was n ’ t - - ag ai n , b ecau s e h e vo l u n teered t h e s tat em en t , I t h i n k t h e St at e, i n al l fai rn es s u n d er t h e ru l es , i s al l o wed t o refu te, i f t h ey can d irect l y refu t e t h at

. So , y o u r o b ject i o n is o v erru l ed o n t hat
reg ard .”
At t ri al , Od o m was t h en fo rced t o defen d h im s el f ag ai n st t h e i n accu rat e, u n t ru e

s u g g es t i o n t h at h e refu s ed t o s u b m i t t o a p o l y g rap h as s ho wn b eg i nn i n g at R.R. V-8 4,

t o -wi t :

“ THE STATE Q

. M r. Od o m , y o u s ai d y o u d i d ev ery t h i n g

t h at t h e po l i ce as k ed y o u to d o
. T h at ’ s no t t ru e, i s i t? It ’ s
a y es o r n o q u es t i on
.

11APPELLANT A. Yes , m a’ am
. Q. Becau s e th ey as k ed y o u t o s u b m it t o a p o l y g rap h

ex am i n at i o n, d i d n ’ t t hey ?
A. Yes , m a’ am
. Q. An d y o u refu s ed t o d o t h at , d i d n’ t y ou ?
A. I d id n’ t refu s e. Q. Yo u d i d n ’ t ?
A. I d id n o t refu s e. Q. W el l , d i d y o u s u b m i t t o o n e?
A. I d i d n ’ t su b m i t t o o ne b ecau s e t h ey s u pp o sed l y h ad
b een g et t i n g wi t h m

y l a wye r o r o v er to m

y l awy er an d

s et t i n g up a n a p p oi n t m en t wi t h m y l awy er. I was d o i n g wh at m y l awy er as k ed y o u t o d o
. Q. Real l y ? Yo u t o l d t h em y o u’ d t ak e a p o l y g rap h wh en
y ou l eft ; b u t y o u n ev e r w o ul d co m e b ack an d t ak e o n e,

wo u ld y o u?
A. I d id t el l t h em

t h at I wo u l d t ak e o n e. Q. Yeah , y o u t o l d t hem t h at ?
A. Yeah , b ut aft er I t al k ed - -

12Q. Yo u d i d n ’ t s h o w u p t o t ak e i t , d i d y o u?
A. Th ey

n ev er t o l d m e a d efi ni t e d ay t o s h o w u p
. Q. Di d n ’ t y o u m ak e an ap p o i n t m en t an d y ou d i d n ’ t

s h o w u p an d t h ey

k ep t t ry i n g t o cal l y o u?
A. No , m a’ am , I d id n ’ t

.

. . . . Q. Th e po i n t is y o u n ev er d i d s h ow u p an d t ak e o ne, d i d
y ou ?
A. It was n ev er a p o i n t i n t i m e t o t ak e o ne. Q. So , t h at i s n o , ri g h t ?
A. No , m a’ am
. ”
Th e Ni n t h Co u rt o f A p p eal s co rrect h el d t h at t h i s H o n o rab l e Co u rt h as

co n si s t en t l

y h el d t hat b o t h p o l y g rap h res u l t s an d q ues t i o n s reg ard i n g wh et h er a wi t n es s t o o k a po l y g rap h are i n ad m i s si b l e at t ri al , ci t in g op i ni o n s o f t h i s Co u rt fro m 1 9 5 1 u n t i l 2 0 0 7. Th e St at e i n co rrect l y s t at es i n i t s p et it i o n t h at t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s rel i ed o n t h i s Ho n o rab l e Co u rt ’ s o pi n i o n i n Net h er y v. S t a t e , 6 9 2 S.W .2 d 6 8 6 (Tex

. Cri m
. A p p
. 1 9 8 5 ). W h i l e Net h er y was on e o f t h e ov er 1 8 cas es t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s ci t ed i n i ts o p i ni o n , i t was no t w h at t h e ap p el l at e co u rt p ri m ari l y rel ied u p o n i n i t s

o p i n i o n
. Th e co urt ’ s o p i n i o n rel i es heav i l y u p o n t h i s Ho n o rab l e Co u rt ’ s o p i n i o n in

13Ni ch ol

s v. S t at e , 3 7 8 S.W .2 d 3 35 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 6 4 ). Th i s Ho n o rab l e Co u rt h as ad d res s ed i s s u es s i m i l ar t o Ni ch o l s m o st recen t l y as 2 0 15

. Ca d e v. S ta t e , 2 0 1 5 Tex

. Cri m
. A p p
. U n p u b . LEXIS 1 5 6 2 0 1 5)(n o t d es ig n at ed fo r p u b l i cat i o n ). Ni ch o l s h as

n o t b een d i s av o wed b y th is Ho n o rab l e Co u rt

. Th e St at e ’ s p et i t i o n p res en t s n o
arg u m en t n o r reas o n as t o wh y t h e Co u rt s h o u ld d o s o n o w. I n a d e s perat e at t em

p t t o t ry t o fi n d s o m e sci n t i l l a o f s u pp o rt fo r it s p r e m i s e h erei n , t h e St at e d i rect s th i s Ho n o rab l e Co u rt ’ s at t en t i o n t o U.S

. v. Al l a r d , 4 6 4 F.3 d
5 2 9 (5 t h Ci r. 20 0 6 ). T h e o n l y t h i n g s d i s t in g u i s h i n g t h e cau s e s u b j u d i ce fro m Al l ar d

are t h e fact s an d t h e l aw. Th e fact s h erei n are n o t t h e fact s i n A l l a r d, s u p r a . Th e

reas on s fo r t he ad m i s s i b i l i t y o f a p o l y g rap h u nd er fed eral l aw are b as ed o n fact s

s ev erel y di fferen t fro m t h e fact s i n t h e cas e at b ar. Th e l aw h erei n i s n o t t h e l aw in
Al l a r d , s u p r a . Th e U ni t ed St at es Co u rt o f Ap peal s fo r t he Fi ft h Ci rcu i t d is cu s s es an d
ap p li es t h e fed eral ru l es o f ev i d en ce i n A l l a r d

. Th e Tex as ru l e s o f ev i den ce are
ap p li cab l e h erei n , n o t fed eral ru l es
. It i s o v erwh el m i n g l y o b v i o us t hat a po l y g rap h ex am i nat i o n was n ev er d efi n i t i v el y s ch ed u led , wh i ch i s wh y Od o m n ev er s u b m i t ted t o o n e. Th erefo re, i t i s

c l earl y d i s pu t ed wh et her Od o m co m m i t t ed p erju ry as t h e St at e wo u l d hav e t h i s Ho n o rab l e Co u rt b el i ev e. Th e St at e’ s arg u m en t a s t o w h y th i s Co u rt s h o u l d g ran t

rev i ew em

b arras s i n g ly l ack s an y fact u al o r l eg al reas o n s fo r t h i s Ho n o rab le Co u rt to

14d o s o
. Ru l e 6 6 .3 , T ex
. R. Ap p
. Pro c. It is bey o n d d i sp u te t h e Ni n t h Co u rt o f Ap p eal s

carefu l ly an d m et icu l o u sl y co n s i d ered i t s op i n i o n , as t h e Co u rt t o ok ov er o n e y ear aft er s u b m i s s i o n t o i s s u e i t s o p i n i o n
. Fo r t h es e reas o n s , t h e St at e’ s Pet i t i o n fo r Di s cret io n ary

Rev i ew cl earl y

m u s t b e d en i ed

.

15PRAYER

W H E R E F O R E , P R

E M I S E S C O N S I D E R E D , O dom ur g e s this H onor a ble C our t
t o d en y t h e S tat e’ s Pet i t i o n fo r Di s cret i on ary Rev i ew fro m t he Ni n t h Co u rt o f Ap p eal s. Res p ect fu l ly s u b m i t t ed , /s / Dav id W . Barl o w DAVID W

. BARLOW ATTORNEY AT LAW Ed i s o n Pl aza 3 5 0 Pi n e St reet , Su i t e 3 1 5 Beau m on t , Tex as 7 7 7 0 1 Tel ep h o n e: (4 0 9 ) 8 3 8 -2 16 8 Facs i m i l e: (4 0 9 ) 8 3 8 -3 1 4 5 d av i d.b arl o w@ d av i d wb arl o w.co m Tex as St at e Bar No . 0 0 7 9 3 30 5

16CERTI FI CATE OF SERVI CE

Th i s is t o cert i fy t h at a t ru e an d co rrect co p y o f t h e f o r e g o in g Rep l y in Op p o s i t io n t o St at e’ s Pet i t i o n fo r Di s cret i o n a r y Rev i ew Fro m th e Ni nt h Co u rt o f Ap p eal s was s erv ed u p on t he Ho n
. Ro bert J. “ Bo b ” W o rt ham , Jef f e r s o n Co u n t y Cri m i n al Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey , J effers o n C o u n t y Co u rt h o u s e, 1 08 5 Pearl , Su i t e 3 0 0,
Beau m o n t , Tex as , 7 77 0 1 , t h o m p s o n @ co .jeff

e r s o n .t x .u s , at t o rn ey fo r t h e St at e o f
T e x as , Pet i t i o n er, an d u p on t he Ho n
. Li s a C. McM i n n, St at e Pro s ecu t i ng At t o r n e y, P.O. Bo x 1 3 04 6 , Au s t i n , Tex as , 7 8 7 1 1-3 0 4 6 , i n f o r m a t i o n @ sp a.t ex as .g o v , by
el ect ro ni c s erv i ce v i a www.efi l e.t x ou rt s .g ov , o n t h i s th e 2 1 s t d ay o f D ecem b er, 2 0 1 5.

/s / Dav id W

. Barl o w DAVID W

. BARLOW

17A P P E N D I X A
Selected Testimony from Cross Examination of Stephen Demond Odom by State of Texas7 8

1 A . Y e s , m a ' a m . Q . Yo u w e n t i n f o r y o u r s e c o n d i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e detective, and your attorney was asking you about this. At s o m e p o i n t , I g u e s s y o u d e c i d e d y o u w a n t e d a n a t t o r n e y ; i s t h a t right? A . Y e s , m a ' a m . Q . B u t y o u r e a l l y - - y o u b e c a m e u n c o o p e r a t i v e w i t h t h e 8 p o l i c e b e f o r e y o u h a d h i r e d a n a t t o r n e y i n t h i s c a s e , h a d n ' t 9 y o u ? 1 0 A . I s t h a t a q u e s t i o n ?
1 1 Q . Y e a h . 1 2 A . N o , m a ' a m . 1 3 Q . I m e a n , w e r e n ' t t h e r e t h i n g s t h e p o l i c e w a n t e d y o u 1 4 t o d o t h a t y o u w e r e n o t w i l l i n g t o d o , e v e n w h e n y o u d i d n o t 1 5 h a v e a n a t t o r n e y ? 1 6 A . N o , m a ' a m . 1 7 Q . T h a t ' s n o t t r u e ? A r e y o u s a y i n g y o u c o o p e r a t e d w i t h 1 8 t h e m a n d d i d e v e r y t h i n g t h a t t h e y a s k e d o f y o u ? 1 9 A . I d i d w h a t e v e r t h e y a s k e d m e t o d o . 2 0 M R . A . S A M U E L : Y o u r H o n o r , m a y w e a p p r o a c h ? 2 1 T H E C O U R T : C o m e o n u p . 2 2 ( B e n c h D i s c u s s i o n O u t s i d e H e a r i n g o f t h e J u r y ) 2 3 M R . A . S A M U E L : S h e ' s t r y i n g t o l e a d h i m t o 2 4 t h e p o i n t a b o u t h i m n o t g i v i n g a p o l y g r a p h a n d w a s n o t 2 5 c o o p e r a t i v e . H e s t a t e d t h a t h e c o o p e r a t e d w i t h t h e p o l i c e , a n d

RENE MULHOLLAND, CSR, TCRR 409-835-84107 9

1 we object to anything alluding to the fact that he was not 2 c o o p e r a t i n g b e c a u s e h e r e f u s e d t o t a k e a p o l y g r a p h . 3 M R S . S C O T T : J u d g e , I j u s t b e l i e v e t h a t h e ' s 4 o p e n e d t h e d o o r f o r t h i s b e c a u s e h e l e a d h i m d o w n t h e l i n e o f 5 questioning saying that the only way he did not cooperate with 6 t h e p o l i c e , t h e o n l y w a y - -

8 g o i n g i n y e t . T H E C O U R T: I t ' s n o t c o m i n g i n y e t . I t ' s n o t

MRS. SCOTT: Okay. THE COURT: Go to something else.

(Bench Discussion Concluded)
1 2 B Y M R S . S C O T T: 1 3 Q . O n c e t h e p o l i c e t o l d y o u t h a t t h i s w a s c h i l d a b u s e , 1 4 t h a t s o m e o n e h a d h u r t J a k y r a a n d t h a t ' s w h a t k i l l e d h e r, w e r e 1 5 y o u i n t e r e s t e d i n fi n d i n g o u t w h o h a d d o n e t h a t ? 1 6 A . O f c o u r s e . Y e s , m a ' a m . 1 7 Q . A n d y o u b e c a m e a w a r e t h a t t h e y s u s p e c t e d y o u , r i g h t ? 1 8 A . Y e s , m a ' a m . 1 9 Q . T h e y t o l d y o u t h a t , d i d n ' t t h e y ? 2 0 A . Y e s , m a ' a m . 2 1 Q . A n d w e r e y o u i n t e r e s t e d i n h e l p i n g t o e l i m i n a t e 2 2 y o u r s e l f a s a s u s p e c t ?
2 3 A . W a s I i n t e r e s t e d ? 2 4 Q . Y e a h . D i d y o u w a n t t o e l i m i n a t e y o u r s e l f a s a 2 5 s u s p e c t ?

RENE MULHOLLAND, CSR, TCRR 409-835-84102 5 a d d e d t h a t s t a t e m e n t .

RENE MULHOLLAND, CSR, TCRR 409-835-84108 1

1 t h a t c o n t r a d i c t s w h a t h e j u s t s a i d ?

M R S . S C O T T : Y e s .
T H E C O U R T : W h a t i s t h a t ?
M R S . S C O T T : H e r e f u s e d t o s u b m i t t o a 5 polygraph examination even before he hired an attorney. 6 T H E C O U R T : I t ' s a l l o w a b l e a t t h i s s t a g e . H e 7 v o l u n t e e r e d t h a t s t a t e m e n t . I t h i n k h e p u t h i m s e l f i n t o i t . 8 He's opened his own door there. I wasn't going to let it in, 9 but I'm certainly not going to let him volunteer statements 10 after he answered the question that misleads this jury. I know 11 you worked on that before but he can't volunteer an additional 1 2 s t a t e m e n t ; a n d t h a t o p e n s t h e d o o r, i n a l l f a i r n e s s , t o 1 3 e v e r y t h i n g . I d o n ' t l i k e t h i s w h o l e s u b j e c t m a t t e r, b u t h e

1 4 c a n ' t m a k e a s t a t e m e n t i f i t ' s n o t a n a c c u r a t e o n e . H e h a d 1 5 g i v e n a n a n s w e r, a n d t h e n h e w e n t f u r t h e r.
1 6 M R . S . S A M U E L : I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t . 1 7 M R S . S C O T T : S o , I c a n g e t i n t o i t n o w ? 1 8 T H E C O U R T : T h e j u r y c a n ' t b e m i s l e a d . T h e 19 whole thing is the rules of evidence are pursuing the truth; 2 0 b u t w h e n h e m a k e s t h a t s t a t e m e n t a n d i t ' s p r o f f e r e d t h a t t h a t 21 contradicts what he just said, then in all fairness, the jury 2 2 i s e n t i t l e d t o k n o w w h a t i t i s . I d o n ' t l i k e p o l y g r a p h s b u t , 2 3 n o n e t h e l e s s , w h e n h e m a k e s - - h e a n s w e r e d t h e q u e s t i o n . I t 2 4 s t i l l d i d n ' t o p e n t h e d o o r . I t w a s h i s n e x t s t a t e m e n t . 2 5 M R . S . S A M U E L : S e c o n d a r y s t a t e m e n t . W i t h

RENE MULHOLLAND, CSR, TCRR 409-835-84108 2

1 t h a t b e i n g s a i d , s t i l l f o r t h e r e c o r d , I w o u l d m a k e a 4 0 3 objection on the grounds that any probative value is substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect, as well as . I mi sieadi ng. T H E C O U R T: W e l l , R u l e 4 0 3 s t a t e s t h a t 6 relevant evidence may be excluded if it's prejudicial or is 7 substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, 8 confusion of the issues or misleading the jury. Now, this 9 Court has considered polygraph issues -- that is, someone not 10 taking a polygraph or taking a polygraph or the results 11 thereof -- to be dangerous ground for presentation because this 12 Court's own experience with polygraphs is that it is not a 1 3 p e r f e c t s c i e n c e . T h a t ' s w h y i t ' s n o t a l l o w e d t o b e e n t e r e d 14 into or else we would do away with the jury. We would just do 15 polygraphs. This Court is not going to be the catalyst for

1 6 t h a t r o a d t o b e t a k e n . 1 7 H o w e v e r , a g a i n , a s I r e v i e w e d t h e r e c o r d , a n d 1 8 I s u s t a i n e d t h e o b j e c t i o n o f n o t a l l o w i n g i t i n t h e fi r s t p l a c e 19 but when a statement is made by -- again, I would note the 20 question, "But you did at some point become uncooperative with 21 the police. Do you dispute that?" That was a yes or no. And 22 he answered, "No, ma'am, I didn't become uncooperative." He 2 3 a n s w e r e d t h e q u e s t i o n ; a n d t h e n h e v o l u n t e e r e d o n h i s o w n n e x t 24 statement, "I did everything they asked me to do." 2 5 W e l l , i f t h e y a s k e d h i m t o t a k e a p o l y g r a p h

RENE MULHOLLAND, CSR, TCRR 409-835-84108 3

1 t h a t I w o u l d n ' t h a v e o t h e r w i s e i n t r o d u c e d o r a l l o w e d t h e 2 a d m i s s i o n o f , w h e n h e m a k e s t h a t l a s t s t a t e m e n t , t h a t i s n o t a 3 f a i r , a c c u r a t e , t r u t h f u l , h o n e s t s t a t e m e n t ; a n d h e v o l u n t e e r e d 4 t h a t . S t a t e h a s a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e f u t e t h a t . 5 M R . 8 . S A M U E L : S o , y o u r r u l i n g i s o v e r r u l e d ,

6 Y o u r H o n o r ? 7 T H E C O U R T : Y o u ' r e m a k i n g a n o b j e c t i o n o f 4 0 3 ?

8 M R . S . S A M U E L : C o r r e c t . 9 T H E C O U R T : I a m fi n d i n g t h a t u n d e r t h e s e 10 circumstances, based upon the balancing test under 403, that 11 t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n u n d e r t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e n o t 1 2 i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t h e r e f u s e d t o t a k e t h e p o l y g r a p h , i s n o t 1 3 e x c l u d e d u n d e r t h e s e , a s i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e i s n o t 14 substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. 1 5 N o w , l e t m e a d d o n e o t h e r g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e
1 6 t h a t t h i s C o u r t l o o k s a t a n d i t ' s f o u n d u n d e r A r t i c l e 1 0 1 o f 1 7 t h e Te x a s R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e o r u n d e r 1 0 2 . F o r p u r p o s e a n d 1 8 c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e r u l e s , t h e r u l e s a r e c o n s t r u e d t o s e c u r e 1 9 f a i r n e s s , e l i m i n a t i o n o f u n j u s t i fi a b l e e x p e n s e a n d d e l a y, 20 promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence -- 2 1 a n d h e r e w h a t I fi n d t o b e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t - - t o t h e e n d 22 that the truth may be ascertained. Well, that's not what we're 2 3 d o i n g i f w e d o n ' t fi n i s h t h a t t h o u g h t t h a t ' s b e e n p u t o u t t h e r e 2 4 f r o m a v o l u n t e e r e d s t a t e m e n t t h a t a f t e r h i s - - a g a i n , h e 25 completed his answer, and then he ventured into the unchartered

RENE MULHOLLAND, CSR, TCRR 409-835-84108 4

1 w a t e r o n h i s o w n o f t h a t s t a t e m e n t . I d o n ' t l i k e i t .
M R S . S C O T T : I k n o w .

a g a i n

overruled? T H E C O U R T : I d o n ' t l i k e a l l o f t h a t b u t

M R . S . S A M U E L : J u s t t o b e c l e a r , i t ' s

THE COURT: We're not going to end that 8 because, truly, as we all agree, it is apparently not factual 9 a n d n o t a t r u t h f u l s t a t e m e n t t h a t ' s b e f o r e t h e j u r y. A l l 1 0 r i g h t . A n d i t w a s n ' t - - a g a i n , b e c a u s e h e v o l u n t e e r e d t h e 1 1 s t a t e m e n t , I t h i n k t h e S t a t e , i n a l l f a i r n e s s u n d e r t h e r u l e s 1 2 i s a l l o w e d t o r e f u t e , i f t h e y c a n d i r e c t l y r e f u t e t h a t . S o , 1 3 y o u r o b j e c t i o n i s o v e r r u l e d o n t h a t r e g a r d . 1 4 ( B e n c h D i s c u s s i o n C o n c l u d e d ) THE COURT: Hold on. You may move forward.
1 6 B Y M R S . S C O T T: 1 7 Q . M r . O d o m , y o u s a i d y o u d i d e v e r y t h i n g t h a t t h e 1 8 p o l i c e a s k e d y o u t o d o . T h a t ' s n o t t r u e , i s i t ? I t ' s a y e s o r 1 9 n o q u e s t i o n . 2 0 A . Y e s , m a ' a m . 2 1 Q . B e c a u s e t h e y a s k e d y o u t o s u b m i t t o a p o l y g r a p h 22 examination, didn't they? 2 3 A . Y e s , m a ' a m . 2 4 Q . A n d y o u r e f u s e d t o d o t h a t , d i d n ' t y o u ?

2 5 A . I d i d n ' t r e f u s e .

RENE MULHOLLAND, CSR, TCRR 409-835-84108 5

1 Q . Y o u d i d n ' t ?
A . I d i d n o t r e f u s e . Q . W e l l , d i d y o u s u b m i t t o o n e ? A . I d i d n ' t s u b m i t t o o n e b e c a u s e t h e y s u p p o s e d l y h a d been getting with my lawyer or over to my lawyer and setting up a n a p p o i n t m e n t w i t h m y l a w y e r. I w a s d o i n g w h a t m y l a w y e r asked you to do. 8 Q . R e a l l y ? Yo u t o l d t h e m y o u ' d t a k e a p o l y g r a p h w h e n 9 you left; but you never would come back and take one, would

1 0 you?

11 A . I d i d t e l l t h e m t h a t I w o u l d t a k e o n e .

1 2 Q . Ye a h , y o u t o l d t h e m t h a t ?

1 3 A . Y e a h , b u t a f t e r I t a l k e d - -

1 4 Q . Yo u d i d n ' t s h o w u p t o t a k e i t , d i d y o u ?

1 5 A . T h e y n e v e r t o l d m e a d e fi n i t e d a y t o s h o w u p .

1 6 Q . Didn't you make an appointment and you didn't show 1 7 u p a n d t h e y k e p t t r y i n g t o c a l l y o u ? 1 8 A . N o , m a ' a m , I d i d n ' t .
1 9 T H E C O U R T : H o l d o n . O n e a t a t i m e . S h e ' s 20 really good, but she can't take both people speaking over each 21 other. She gets to ask the question and then you have a fair 22 opportunity to answer. Don't step anybody speaking. Restate 2 3 y o u r q u e s t i o n . 2 4 M R . A . S A M U E L : Y o u r H o n o r , I o b j e c t . T h e 2 5 q u e s t i o n w a s a s k e d , a n d i t w a s a n s w e r e d . I a l s o o b j e c t t h a t

RENE MULHOLLAND, GSR, TCRR
409-835-84108 6

1 c o u n s e l i s b e i n g a r g u m e n t a t i v e . T H E C O U R T: O v e r r u l e d . I ' l l a l l o w y o u , o f course, to renew your objection. Let's move through this p o i n t . G o f o r w a r d .
5 B Y M R S . S C O T T: 6 Q . T h e p o i n t i s y o u n e v e r d i d s h o w u p a n d t a k e o n e , d i d 7 y o u ? 8 A . I t w a s n e v e r a p o i n t i n t i m e t o t a k e o n e . 9 Q . S o , t h a t i s n o , r i g h t ? 1 0 A . N o , m a ' a m . 1 1 Q . M r . O d o m , d i d y o u e v e r , w h e n y o u w e r e t a k i n g c a r e 1 2 o f , J a k y r a a b u s e a n y d r u g s o r t a k e a n y d r u g s ?

1 3 A . Ye s , m a ' a m .

1 4 0 . What drugs would you take?

1 5 A . I smoked marijuana.

1 6 Q . Did you ever do anything else?

1 7 A . N o , m a ' a m .

1 8 Q . Did you ever, while you were taking care of Jakyra

1 9 a b u s e P C P ?

2 0 A . N o , m a ' a m .

2 1 Q . Benzodi azepi nes?

2 2 A . N o , m a ' a m .

2 3 Q . Or ecstasy?

2 4 A . N o , m a ' a m .

2 5 Q . A1cohol?

RENE MULHOLLAND, CSR, TCRR
409-835-8410A P P E N D I X B
Selected Testimony from Re-Direct Examination of Stephen Demond Odom by Odom's Trial Counsel108
1 Q . D i d y o u e v e r s t r i k e J a k y r a ?
A . N o , s i r . Q. Did you ever see any injuries that would lead you to believe someone had struck Jakyra? 5 A . N o , s i r . 6 Q . W h e n y o u m e t w i t h D e t e c t i v e C u r l a n d h e b e g a n t o 7 question you, he asked you to take a polygraph?

8 A . H e a s k e d m e w o u l d I t a k e o n e .

9 Q . And your response was?

1 0 A . Y e s , I w o u l d .
11 Q . And to your knowledge, is a polygraph a perfect

1 2 i n s t r u m e n t ? 1 3 A . F r o m w h a t m y l a w y e r t o l d m e , n o . 1 4 Q . B u t y e t a n d s t i l l , y o u w e r e w i l l i n g t o t a k e i t ?

1 5 A . Y e a h . 1 6 Q . B u t t h e y n e v e r g a v e y o u a d a t e t o c o m e t a k e i t ? 1 7 A . N o , t h e y n e v e r g a v e m e a d a t e . 18 Q. Now, there was some questions about you smoking 19 marijuana. Did you ever smoke marijuana in the presence of 2 0 J a k y r a ? 2 1 A . N o t i n t h e p r e s e n c e , b u t I h a v e . 2 2 Q . B u t n o t i n h e r p r e s e n c e ? 2 3 A . N o , s i r . 2 4 Q . A t a n y t i m e , d i d y o u s m o k e m a r i j u a n a i n t h e s a m e

2 5 r o o m w i t h h e r ?

RENE MULHOLLAND, GSR, TCRR 409-835-8410