concurring.
The majority holds that juror note-taking rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Although we may need to address the question of juror note-taking at some point, we do not need to address it in order to dispose of the instant ease. Therefore, I do not join the majority opinion. But I do concur in the judgment of the Court.
*959With respect to appellant’s ground for review pertaining to juror note-taking, the relevant facts are as follows: Before any evidence was adduced at appellant’s trial, the trial court instructed the jurors that they would be allowed to take notes during the presentation of the evidence. The trial court cautioned the jurors, however, that any notes taken were for the use of the note-taker only. In other words, the contents of the notes were not to be shared with other jurors. This cautionary instruction was repeated just before the jury retired for deliberation at the guilt/innocence phase. After the jurors retired, appellant objected to the jurors being allowed to take their notes into the jury room. The trial court overruled the objection. Although appellant complained of the juror note-taking on appeal, he made no attempt, by affidavit or otherwise, to show that any jurors actually used any notes during their deliberations.
We have already held that even if juror note-taking is improper, a reversal of a conviction is unwarranted when the appellant makes no showing that the jurors actually used their notes during their deliberations. Hollins v. State, 571 S.W.2d 873, 883 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). Therefore, on the record before us, appellant is not entitled to a reversal on the basis of juror note-taking, and the court of appeals did not err in denying him a reversal on that basis.
Appellant’s ground for review regarding juror note-taking should be decided on the basis of Hollins. There is no need for the Court to decide the difficult question whether juror note-taking is lawful in state criminal trials. For that reason, I concur only in the judgment of the Court.