Court Opinion

ID: 9770363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:59:45.97086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:16.558019
License: Public Domain

MARGARET GARNER MIRABAL, Justice,
dissenting..
I dissent. In my opinion, appellant’s point of error one should be sustained, but only for the reasons stated here.
In point of error one, appellant asserts the trial court erred by refusing to allow the jury to see defendant’s exhibit number two, a videotape admitted into evidence and requested by the jury during its deliberations as part of a general request for exhibits.
The Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial judge to give the jury, upon its request, any exhibits admitted as evidence.1 Lopez v. State, 628 S.W.2d 82, 85 (Tex.Crim.App.1982); Parker v. State, 745 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, pet. refd). Article 36.25 is mandatory, and it is reversible error for the trial court to refuse to comply with the *20jury’s request for an exhibit. Parker, 745 S.W.2d at 937.
During their deliberations, at 2:35 p.m., the jury foreman sent a note to the judge asking to see “all” of the exhibits. The videotape was not given to the jury when the other exhibits were delivered to the jury room. One and one-half hours later, at 4:05 p.m., the jury returned its verdict of guilty. It is uncontested that the jury never saw the videotape, even though it had been admitted as an exhibit and the jury had requested “all” exhibits, and even though defense counsel specifically objected to the trial court’s failure to give the videotape to the jury. The record indicates that the trial court attempted to correct what it considered to be an erroneous ruling on the admissibility of the videotape, but the jury apparently concluded its deliberations before the judge could present supplemental instructions. The jury never saw the supplemental instructions or the videotape.
Under the circumstances here, I would hold the trial court committed reversible error2 when it did not provide the videotape, after it had been admitted into evidence and was requested by the jury. If the jury had received instructions about the trial court’s change in its ruling on the admissibility of the videotape, we would have a different case to decide. However, the jury received no such instructions.
For these reasons, I conclude that point of error one should be sustained, the judgment should be reversed, and the case should be remanded for a new trial.3
Justices COHEN, O’CONNOR, and ANDELL join this dissent.
Justice O’CONNOR dissenting separately.

. There shall be furnished to the jury upon its request any exhibits admitted as evidence in the case. Tex.Code Crim.P.Ann. art. 36.25 (Vernon 1989).

. In light of the contents of the videotape and the closing argument of appellant’s counsel to the jury about the videotape, I cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error made no contribution to the conviction. Tex. R.App.P. 81(b)(2).

. I note that the witness, who was four years old at the time of the original trial, will be at least nine years old at the time of the second trial. Therefore, I consider point of error three to be moot. Further, the alleged errors raised in points of error two and four are not likely to recur at the retrial.