Court Opinion

ID: 9634603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:17:58.150812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:59.258403
License: Public Domain

GRANT, Justice,
dissenting.
The rationale for the rule of optional completeness3 is that an opponent should be permitted to correct any misleading impression left with the fact finder through introduction of only a portion of evidence. See, e.g., Roman v. State, 503 S.W.2d 252, 253 (Tex.Crim.App.1974). Once a matter is injected into a proceeding, evidence to fully explain the matter is relevant and admissible, even though the evidence might not otherwise be admissible. Callaway v. State, 818 S.W.2d 816 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1991, pet. ref'd). The purpose of the rule of optional completeness is to reduce the possibility of a juror receiving a false impression from hearing only part of some act, conversation, or writing. Credille v. State, 925 S.W.2d 112 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd). The rule of optional completeness seeks to prevent evidence from being unfairly taken out of context.
The Rules of Evidence did not suddenly exist. They came into being over hundreds of years based upon the collective wisdom of human experience. The optional completeness rule, which would suffer severely from the newly-established precedent set by this case, is an example of the role of the Rules of Evidence to provide fairness for both sides in the search for the truth in the courtroom. Every Sunday *402school teacher in America could quickly demonstrate the dangers of conveying a false impression by quoting only.a portion of a writing or conversation and not allowing the remainder of the context to be completed. I lament the willingness of the majority to whimsically impair the functioning of this rule.
In the present case, the reason the defendant was entitled to introduce the evidence concerning the results of the polygraph test was to complete what the State had introduced, which left the jury with an erroneous impression of the result of the polygraph test.
The majority has sought to circumvent this rule by an exception made from whole cloth — -an exception not contained in the rule, not contained in any commentary or writing pertaining to the rule, and not contained in any case in the State of Texas or any other jurisdiction. This innovative theory was not raised in the trial court or on appeal in this case.
The majority would apply the rule of optional completeness only if opposing counsel had objected to inadmissible evidence when it was introduced. This new-cloth proposal is flawed. It eliminates any possible strategy in an adversary proceeding of not objecting to evidence which may be favorable when the full picture is shown. However, until the offer is completed, counsel may not-be aware that the complete evidence of the act, conversation, or writing is not going to be introduced. At that point, an objection would be too late to prevent the jury from hearing only part of the evidence and forming an erroneous impression. The rule itself, contemplating the importance of the act, conversation, or writing being completed if the other side so chooses, goes so far as to allow the opposing party to complete the matter at the time it is introduced and not require that the opposing party wait until after the examination of the witness or when that party is introducing evidence.
The majority attempts to base this new requirement on cases involving the impeachment of a person’s character. To borrow from Mark Twain, the difference between these two evidentiary principles is analogous to the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.
The three cases cited by the majority to justify their holding do not involve the optional completeness rule and are distinguishable from the present ease. In the Nixon case, the question was whether the State could introduce improper evidence because its witness testified that the defendant was a good employee and “a very kind guy.” The Court held that this did not open the door to impeachment of this witness by “have you heard” questions, holding that this evidence did not place the appellant’s character or reputation in issue. The Court held that the State could not under the guise of rebuttal present additional improper evidence of character. Nixon v. State, 653 S.W.2d 443 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). In Wiggins v. State, 778 S.W.2d 877 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, pet. ref'd), the court held that if a nonrespon-sive answer was inadmissible, the remedy was an objection, a motion to strike, and a request for an instruction to disregard, not admission of rebuttal evidence. This case also involved the defendant’s general reputation for truthfulness. In White v. State, the sole ground of error was that the trial court had erred in allowing the State to cross-examine a defense witness by asking “have you heard” questions about the defendant’s reputation. White v. State, 590 S.W.2d 936, 937 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979). The Court held there was no reasonable basis for asking “have you heard” questions of a witness who testified to his personal opinion of someone’s character, as opposed to the reputation of the person’s character. The Court further held that even if this testimony had been inadmissible, the State could not use it as a guide for presenting additional improper evidence.
These cases cited by the majority do not refer to or involve the optional complete*403ness rule. While they do involve opening the door on reputation matters, the optional completeness rule is not applicable to this area of evidence, has never been applied to this area of evidence, and these cases in no way suggest that it is applicable to this area of evidence. Reputation evidence involves a much broader spectrum than is contemplated by the rule of optional completeness, which involves evidence limited to the specific document, conversation, declaration, or writing from which it is specifically quoted.
On the other hand, the cases do not indicate that an objection to the initial testimony is required. For example, in Kipp v. State, the Court stated that if a part of a hearsay statement is testified to, the remainder of the statement may be admissible under the rule of optional completeness. The Court did not require an objection to the initial hearsay testimony. Kipp v. State, 876 S.W.2d 330 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). In Martinez v. State, elicitation of hearsay testimony from an officer by defense counsel, without objection by the State, allowed the State to bring out the rest of the hearsay testimony to clarify the first hearsay testimony. The hearsay testimony elicited by the defense counsel was not objected to by the State. Martinez v. State, 749 S.W.2d 556 (Tex.App.San Antonio 1988, no pet.). The court held that it was not error to admit hearsay evidence when it serves to clarify other hearsay evidence solicited by the opposition, relying on the rule of optional completeness. The State had made no objection to the eliciting of the testimony.
Long contends the trial court committed reversible error in sustaining the State’s objection to the testimony of Kelly Hendricks regarding the specific questions asked of Brown at his polygraph examination. Long contends that such evidence should have been admitted under Rule 107 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, the “optional completeness rule,” because the State had “opened the door” to such testimony when Detective Dubose testified on direct that Brown had failed his polygraph test. Tex.R. Evid. 107. The optional completeness rule has been held applicable to references to polygraph tests. Jannise v. State, 789 S.W.2d 623 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1990, pet. ref'd).
Long contends that the specific questions asked and the techniques employed by Kendricks, the polygraph expert, would demonstrate for the jury exactly how Brown had lied, particularly, “the jury may have been left with the false impression that Brown failed [the polygraph test] because he lied about excluding Appellant.”
During the direct examination of Detective Dubose, the assistant district attorney asked him why he accompanied Brown to Houston. Dubose testified that, because Brown had failed his polygraph test, Du-bose wanted to get more information from Long about Brown’s potential involvement in the case. During the direct examination of Brown, the assistant district attorney inquired of Brown whether he had been given a polygraph test, to which Brown responded in the affirmative, and he further asked Brown if he had been told how he did on the test, to which Brown responded that he had failed it.
In certain limited instances under the rule of optional completeness, polygraph test results have been permitted to be introduced into evidence. Rule 107 of the Rules of Evidence provides that
When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or recorded statement is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and any other act, declaration, writing or recorded statement which is necessary to make it fully understood or to explain the same may also be given in evidence, as when a letter is read, all letters on the same subject between the same parties may be given.
Tex.R. Evid. 107.
In Lucas v. State, 479 S.W.2d 314 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), the Court of Criminal Ap*404peals recognized the predecessor of the quoted rule as allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of the results of a polygraph examination given to the defendant after the defendant, testifying on his own behalf, stated that he had made an agreement with the district attorney that his case would be dismissed if he “passed” the polygraph test. The defendant testified in the same manner on cross-examination. On redirect he introduced a written motion for bond reduction, which had been previously filed by the district attorney and specifically referred to the agreement regarding the polygraph test. The agreement stated, “While the results were inconclusive in proving that Danny Lucas was completely innocent, they did indicate that he was not the person who assaulted the injured party_” Id. at 315. Defendant further testified on redirect that he took a lie detector test and that the results of the test showed that he was not guilty and that the district attorney told him he did not believe he was guilty. Thereafter, the district attorney was called as a witness to testify that defendant did not pass the polygraph test. Id.
Citing the rule of optional completeness in effect at the time, the Court held: “Although the results from a polygraph test are ordinarily not admissible in evidence we conclude that under the particular facts of this case the appellant ‘opened the door’ for the State to introduce the complained of testimony.” Id.4 The “opening the door” rule applies with equal force to either the prosecution or the defense. King v. State, 773 S.W.2d 302, 307 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (Teague, J., dissenting); Parr v. State, 557 S.W.2d 99 (Tex.Crim.App.1977).
The “opening of the door” in Lucas has been limited by subsequent opinions. While inadmissible evidence may be admitted if the party against whom the evidence is offered opens the door, the party offering the inadmissible evidence may not stray beyond the scope of the invitation. Schutz v. State, 957 S.W.2d 52, 71 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). For example, the use of specific statements from a polygraph examination for impeachment purposes, without revealing to the jury the source of the statements, did not permit, under the rule of optional completeness, the opposing party to disclose to the jury the results of the polygraph examination. Hoppes v. State, 725 S.W.2d 532, 535-36 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.). The fact that a polygraph test is mentioned, without mentioning the results of that test, has been held not to be a “door opener” to further testimony by the opposing party as to the test’s results. Castillo v. State, 739 S.W.2d 280, 293 (Tex.Crim.App.1987).
However, in this case, the results of the polygraph test given to Brown, the State’s key witness, were mentioned several times to the jury, just as in Lucas v. State, without objection and without the jury being instructed to disregard. The jury was informed that Brown had not passed his lie detector test and that was the reason the police continued their investigation of his involvement in this matter. The results of the polygraph test were initially injected into the proceedings by a State’s witness. Long then sought to introduce the expert who had administered the test, particularly to determine the questions that had been asked of Brown at the examination. At a hearing on a pretrial motion, Long called Kelly Hendricks, who operated an investigation and polygraph company in Humble, Texas. Detectives Ervin'and Dubose requested that Hendricks conduct polygraph examinations of the Walgreens’s employees in connection with the robbery/homicide. Because the robbery/homicide occurred at closing time at the Walgreens store, law enforcement officers wanted to *405give polygraph examinations to the employees who had been on duty that night to find out if they knew more than what they revealed in their initial interviews. The reason Brown was tested initially was because Detective Ervin found “inconsistencies” in certain statements Brown had made to law enforcement officers. Initially, Brown said that he was waiting outside for a ride after work and that Long drove by and picked him up.
In the pretrial hearing, Long’s counsel questioned Hendricks as to how he developed the questions that were asked of the Walgreens’s employees. In the course of examining Brown, Hendricks conducted a pretest interview in which Brown told him that Cedars had let him out of the store at the end of his shift on the night of the robbery/homicide. Kendricks then formulated what he referred to as his “primary exam sequence.” First, a “numerical acquaintance test” was run in which Brown was asked to pick a number and tell the examiner that he did not pick that number, to test the witness’s response to a known lie. In the pretest, Brown indicated “deception ... just like he was supposed to.” The questions Hendricks initially asked of Brown were: 1) “Do you know who shot Mr. Cedars during the robbery?” 2) “Did you shoot the [assistant manager] of Wal-greens during the robbery?” 3) ‘Were you inside Walgreens Friday night when the [assistant manager] was shot?” and 4) “Did you make plans with anyone to rob Walgreens?” Kendricks testified, according to the polygraph, Brown’s “no” answers to all questions were deceptive. A follow-up examination was then administered, using different questions: 1) “Do you know something else about this case you are not telling us?” (Answer “NO”); 2) “When you left Walgreens Friday night, was Mr. Cedars still alive?” (Answer “YES”); 3) “Did you help anyone rob Wal-greens?” (Answer “NO”); and 4) “When you returned to work Saturday, did you already know what happened?” (Answer “NO”). Kendricks testified that deception was also shown in Brown’s answers to these questions and that he tried to talk to Brown in an attempt to “resolve some of the deceptive problems, at which time he [Brown] offered no relevant explanations as to why deception was noted....”
The State opened the door, or allowed it to be opened, with reference to not only the fact that a polygraph test had been administered, but to the results of that test. Detective Ervin testified that, based at least in part on the results of the polygraph test, Brown was advised that he was a major suspect in the homicide. Because of the unfavorable results of Brown’s polygraph examination, Long was interviewed again to see if he had picked up Brown from in front of the Walgreens store, as Brown had told them. At the time of this interview, Detective Ervin testified that Long was not even a suspect.
Under the rule of optional completeness, therefore, Long should have been permitted to inquire into the specific questions asked at the polygraph examination. Had Brown been asked by the polygraph tester only about his knowledge of Long’s participation in the robbery, and had he demonstrated deception in this regard, this would have provided support for Brown’s eventual testimony implicating Long in the homicide. However, as shown by the testimony in the pretrial hearing, Brown also was shown by the test to have been deceptive in his answer to the' question “Did you [Brown] shoot the [assistant manager] ... ?” Without knowing the specific questions asked, a reasonable jury would have gotten a much different picture of the investigation than if the specifics of the actual questions on which Brown demonstrated deception were known. The jury could easily believe that Brown failed his test because he lied about Long’s involvement in the murder.
The concept of an attorney “opening the door” to what would be otherwise inadmissible evidence is based on the fact that once one party has opened an inquiry into a particular subject, that party cannot *406complain when the opposing party desires to go into the details of that subject. Evidence used to fully explain a matter opened up by the other party need not ordinarily be admissible. King, 773 S.W.2d at 307. The rule allowing the introduction of the entire writing, after part of the writing is used by one party, was meant to guard against the possibility of confusion, distortion, or false impression arising from the use of part of the writing. Pinkney v. State, 848 S.W.2d 363, 366 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.).
The reasons why appellate courts have historically not permitted the introduction of polygraph evidence is due to the inherent unreliability of the evidence and its tendency to be unduly persuasive. Polygraph evidence has also generally been excluded due to potential sources of error in the test itself, including the incompetency of the examiner, the tendency of the jury to place too much reliance on the test results, and the difficulty for jury evaluation of the examiners’ opinions. Perkins v. State, 902 S.W.2d 88, 92-93 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995), supplemented by 905 S.W.2d 452 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, pet. ref'd).
By not permitting the defense to inquire regarding the specific questions asked of Brown by the polygraph examiner, the State has benefited unfairly from normally inadmissible, unduly persuasive evidence that was not fully explained. Long was also unfairly denied testimony that was favorable to his position, i.e., that Eddie Brown’s “no” answer to the question of whether he (Brown) killed the assistant manager of Walgreens was found to be deceptive. Without such information, the jury was given a distorted or false impression as to the polygraph results, contrary to the well-established rule of law referred to above.
In Patteson v. State, 633 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, no pet.), the court of appeals recognized that inherently unreliable polygraph evidence should, once it has come into the case, at least be fully and accurately explained to the jury. Id. at 550-52. We hold that the trial court’s ruling did not do so in this case, leaving the jury with a false or distorted impression of a very favorable piece of the State’s evidence.
The State further argues that even if the polygraph questions should have been admitted, the error, if any, has to be disregarded because an erroneous ruling on the admission of evidence falls under Tex. R.App. P. 44.2(b): “Any other [nonconstitu-tional] error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” A “substantial right” is affected when the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict. King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); Chisum v. State, 988 S.W.2d 244, 251 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd). The Court in King v. State relied upon and cited as its authority Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946).
The majority opinion contends that failure to admit this evidence was harmless error and quotes from the record in an effort to demonstrate this point. It is true that the evidence points out that because Brown “failed his polygraph,” the State focused on Brown as a suspect. But this evidence did not tell, the jury that his involvement went so far as to show that he was the person who actually did the shooting. As stated by the majority in quoting the direct examination of Detective Du-bose, Dubose testified that after Brown’s polygraph, the police wanted to speak to Long again to find out what happened that night, if he had picked Brown up, if Brown was outside, where Brown was located, if Brown had anything with him, and what they had done. None of the testimony cited by the majority renders the error harmless by suggesting that Brown was the person who did the shooting. Du-bose’s testimony that he wanted to find out “if Brown was outside” suggests that Brown may have served as a lookout or *407served in some other capacity, but not that Brown’s involvement was some capacity other than being the shooter. The crucial polygraph results in this case, which Long sought to complete, was to show that Brown failed the polygraph test when he denied he was the shooter.
The trial judge ruled that the specific questions asked in the polygraph examination were irrelevant and cumulative of evidence already before the jury. The State argues, correctly, that there was already a large amount of evidence before the jury which attacked the credibility, generally, of Brown. Completion of polygraph results, however, does more than degrade Brown’s general credibility. A false answer to the question as to whether Brown had killed the assistant manager of Walgreens is a direct implication of Brown as the individual who shot Cedars. The jury did not get to hear evidence that the State’s star witness, who, having admitted and been shown to have lied about other aspects of the case, also failed the polygraph test when he said he was not the killer.
That evidence is potentially significant, because the trial court instructed the jury as follows: To warrant a conviction of the defendant of capital murder, you must find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, not only on the occasion in question the defendant was engaged in the commission or attempted commission of the felony offense of robbery of John Cedars, but also during the commission of the robbery or attempted robbery thereof, if any, the defendant shot John Cedars with the intention of killing him. Unless you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, on said occasion, specifically intended to kill the said John Cedars when he shot him, if he did shoot him, you cannot convict him of the offense of capital murder.
(Emphasis added.)
This is not a case built on the law of parties; the State is not trying to convict all persons present in a criminal situation without knowledge as to which individual actually committed the criminal act of capital murder. The charge is that Long specifically intended to kill Cedars in the course of a robbery or attempted robbery. The defense did not put the results of the polygraph examination into this case; this was done by the State’s own witnesses. The results of Brown’s polygraph examination were used to enhance the State’s case. Yet, Long was denied his right under the rule of optional completeness to fully explain these results. Such explanation would have not only attacked generally the credibility of the State’s key witness, but would have presented some evidence that this witness, and not Long, was the actual perpetrator of the offense charged. This had a substantial and injurious effect and influence in determining the jury’s verdict.
I respectfully dissent.

. The rule of optional completeness was a part of the common law before it was codified in Article 38.24 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. TexCode Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.24 (Vernon 1979). Wigmore's Code of Evidence sets forth the rule of optional completeness under Rule 188. John Henry Wig-more, Wigmore’s Code of the Rules of Evidence in Trials at Law 376-77 (2d ed.1935). Later it was adopted in Rule 107 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. Tex.R. Evid. 107. The term used for this concept seems to vary from state to state. Some states use the term "rule of completeness.” See State v. Skillicom, 944 S.W.2d 877 (Mo.1997).

. Regarding, generally, the rule of optional completeness, i.e., "opening the door” to otherwise inadmissible testimony. Tex.R. Evid. 107; see Washington v. State, 856 S.W.2d 184, 186 (Tex.Crim.App.1993); Robinson v. State, 550 S.W.2d 54, 59 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Streff v. State, 890 S.W.2d 815, 819-20 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1994, no pet.); Pinkney v. State, 848 S.W.2d 363, 366 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.).