for clinical polygraph examinations as directed by the therapist; to
abide by all rules and regulations of the program; and to be responsible for
any costs of the program. The State further alleged that Hart had admitted to
the community supervision officer on October 11,  2006, that he had not
been honest during the polygraph examination on that day with the polygraph
examiner.




Hart=s conditions of community
supervision had originally omitted Condition No. 35; however,  after Hart was
placed on community supervision on February 24, 1999, the court amended Hart=s community supervision
order on April 26, 1999, by adding Condition No. 35.  That amendment stated
that Hart was to have no unsupervised contact with children under the age of
seventeen and that he was not to frequent, remain about, or enter any place
where children under the age of seventeen congregate. supervised
the sex offenders for the Henderson County Community Supervision and
Corrections Department.  Ward stated that the community supervision records
reflected that Hart=s
prior community supervision officer also had concerns about Hart.  On one
occasion, Hart had been given permission to visit his grandmother in Eastland
but had gone to see his in-laws who lived across the street from one of his
earlier victims. Also, that community supervision officer documented concerns
and conversations with Hart about his taking a position of authority or trust
in a church, his being a pastor and counseling female members, and his feelings
of power through positions in a church.  Hart changed churches two or three
times and started his own church on one occasion.  Ward became his community
supervision officer in January 2005.
 Ward
testified that Hart had failed to report at 4:30 p.m. on September