Court Opinion

ID: 9660596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:16:36.578493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:20.819344
License: Public Domain

DORSEY, Justice,
concurring.
I join in Justice Seerden’s opinion but write to address certain issues that are raised by Chief Justice Nye’s dissent and to more clearly define and analyze the legal precedents implicated. The secrecy or “privilege” of the investigatory files of the county attorney is not an issue, for the plaintiff below seeks only that evidence from those files that was presented to the grand jury. At issue is whether the testimony of witnesses before the grand jury is imbued with secrecy so that testimony may not be discovered by this plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action.
The deliberations of the grand jury are not implicated in this case, only the testimony of witnesses.
Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 20.02 (Vernon 1977) provides: “The deliberations of the grand jury shall be secret,” and then provides a penalty for violations of the secrecy. That article’s predecessors, Tex. Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 374 (Vernon 1925), Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 425 (Vernon 1911), and Tex.Code Crim.Proc. Ann. art. 413 (Vernon 1895), had a similar if not identical provision. Early cases were concerned with what the secrecy referred to. In Haywood v. State, 134 S.W. 218 (Tex.Crim.App.1911), it was urged that unauthorized persons were present when the grand jury was deliberating. The court found that the county attorney and two assistants were with the grand jury at different times while witnesses were being presented, but that none were present when the grand jury was deliberating or voting. Similarly, in McGregor v. State, 201 S.W. 184 (Tex.Crim.App.1918), the Court, citing numerous cases including Haywood, held that the State’s attorney, his assistant and stenographer may be present when witnesses are testifying before the grand jury. “None of these persons are authorized to be present while the grand jury is deliberating upon the accusation, or voting on it. This is held in all the cases mentioned.” Id. at 186.
Thus, a distinction was found early between the deliberations of a grand jury and *580its taking of evidence. The plaintiff in the instant case does not seek to discover the deliberations of the grand jury, so article 20.02 is not applicable.
Similarly, Bailey v. Victoria Bank & Trust Co., 114 S.W.2d 920 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1938, no writ) is not helpful in our determination of this case, because there, the plaintiff attempted to call a number of grand jurors to testify whether another grand juror, an officer in the defendant bank named Blackburn, “procured” the plaintiffs indictment. The party sought to discover the dealings of the grand jurors among themselves in deliberation, not the testimony of witnesses or evidence brought before the body.
Nor am I able to find support for Chief Justice Nye’s position in the oath of the grand jurors that is required by Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., art. 19.34 (Vernon 1965) that has been essentially unchanged since 1875. The only portion of the oath that refers to secrecy reads in its entirety: “the State’s counsel, your fellows and your own, you shall keep secret,....” None of those proscriptions are applicable here, for the plaintiff below does not seek conversations, advice, or deliberations among the grand jurors and the State’s attorney.
Clearly, in criminal law, the testimony of witnesses before the grand jury may be discovered upon a showing of a particularized need. McManus v. State, 591 S.W.2d 505, 523 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Torres v. State, 493 S.W.2d 874, 876 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); Smith v. State, 653 S.W.2d 835, 839 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1982), rev’d, on other grounds (Tex.Crim.App., Sept. 14, 1988) (not published).
Relator, the county attorney, seeks a writ of mandamus basing his claim for protection from discovery solely on alleged protection afforded by the Open Records Act; he does not claim a “privilege” on the common law, or other statutory ground. Nonetheless, because of the precedential value of this case and the analysis utilized by Chief Justice Nye, this concurring opinion was mandated. However, I fully agree with the analysis expressed by the majority written by Justice Seerden.