Court Opinion

ID: 9671337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:34:41.808199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:09.351836
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(concurring).
Remaining convinced of the soundness of the original opinion holding the appellant to be an accomplice rather than a principal and my concurrence therewith, I would add only the following.
While I agree with the result, I cannot bring myself to agree with the assumption not supported by evidence that appellant’s proof as to the unconstitutionality of the grand jury’s action must necessarily have come from what occurred within the grand jury room and not from the holding of the highly publicized court of inquiry. We, as a Court, have no authority to make such an assumption against an accused, or to speculate as to the nature or quality of the proof which might have been adduced had the court permitted it. I further take issue with my brother McDonald in his statement that the constitutional guarantees do not encompass grand jury action.
I viewed Judge DICE’S discussion of the proof of extraneous offenses as grounds for reversal as will be seen from my original concurrence herein. I concur in the overruling of the State’s motion for rehearing.