Court Opinion

ID: 9678980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:37:39.338939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:09.326023
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge
(concurring).
I agree that this is a criminal case. However, I cannot agree that the trial court had any authority to compel the appellant to submit to a psychological examination. The only purpose of this examination was to provide “evidence” to support a finding that the appellant should be held without bail.
We are not dealing with a trial and the determination of guilt or innocence; no issue of competency or insanity was raised or suggested, and therefore this psychological examination was not sanctioned by either Article 46.02 or Article 46.03 of our Code of Criminal Procedure.
Neither are we dealing with a hearing to determine punishment under Article 37.-071(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which allows such psychiatric testimony. See Livingston v. State, 542 S.W.2d 655 (Tex.Cr.App.1976).
Thus, the court erred in requiring the appellant to submit to a psychological examination, since there was absolutely no authority for such an examination. I would also hold that once the court had committed this error, it was error to allow the testimony of the doctor to be admitted into evidence.
However, I believe that the errors were harmless in the present case, since there was sufficient other evidence to support the court’s finding that the appellant be held without bail under the authority of Art. I, Sec. 11, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Const. and Art. 1.07, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.