Case Name: John Leonard Bludworth v. State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1959-06-03
Citations: 168 Tex. Crim. 549
Docket Number: No. 30,780
Parties: John Leonard Bludworth v. State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 168
Pages: 549–552

Head Matter:
John Leonard Bludworth v. State.
No. 30,780.
June 3, 1959.
Motion for Rehearing Overruled November 18, 1959.
Second Motion for Rehearing Overruled January 6, 1960.
MORRISON, Presiding Judge, concurred.
Charles A. Keilin, Houston, for appellant.
Dan Walton, District Attorney, Thomas D. White, Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., Jack Rawitscher, Assistants District Attorney, Houston, and Leon Douglas, State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Judge.
This is a conviction for the misdemeanor offense of drunken driving, with punishment assessed at a fine of $50 and seven days in jail.
Five days before the date this case was set for trial, appellant properly made application through his counsel to the clerk of the court for the issuance of a subpoena for a witness whom the application showed to be attending school and temporarily residing in Abilene, Taylor County, Texas. The name of the witness and his address were stated.
The clerk of the court refused to issue the subpoena, as requested. The reason for such refusal does not appear in the bill of exception or elsewhere in the record.
Upon the trial of the case, appellant sought to have the trial postponed until he could secure the testimony of the witness.
So the question before us is whether the clerk of the court in which a misdemeanor case is pending has the arbitrary right to refuse to issue a subpoena for a witness who resides in a county other than that in which the prosecution is pending.
Thus is presented a constitutional question.
The Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution provides that:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor
Art. 1, Sec. 10, of the Constitution of this state is to the same effect, wherein it says:
"In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor
The legislature implemented that constitutional provision by Sec. 3 of Chap. 4, Title 7, Code of Criminal Procedure. Among the statutes there set out is Art. 475, C.C.P., which reads as follows:
"Application for out-county witness
"Where a witness resides out of the county in which the prosecution is pending, the State or the defendant shall be entitled, either in term time or in vacation, to a subpoena to compel the attendance of such witness on application to the proper clerk or magistrate. Such application shall be in the manner and form as provided in Article 463."
The answer to the question proposed has been definitely determined by this court in the case of Hickerson v. State, 161 Texas Cr. Rep. 140, 275 S.W. 2d 801, wherein we held that Art. 475, C.C.P., applies only to the district court, the grand jury, and the examining courts.
Other than Art. 475, C.C.P., the legislature of this state has not implemented, by statute, the constitutional provisions relative to compulsory process for out-county witnesses in a county court.
As the law in this state now stands, we have only the constitutional provision,' with no statutory implementation thereof.
The question of whether a trial judge has the right in a given case or under certain circumstances to require the attendance of out-of-county witnesses in the county court in misdemeanor cases by virtue of the constitutional provision for compulsory attendance is not before us.
What we hold here is that there is now no statutory authority in this state for the issuance of a subpoena for and the com-, pelling of the attendance of out-county witnesses in a criminal case in a county court, and therefore the clerk in the instant case was authorized to refuse to issue the subpoena as prayed for by the appellant.
No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.