Court Opinion

ID: 9638830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:55:41.700205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:10.034523
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(Concurring).
In view of the fact that in writing for the court I have recently, in Sowers v. State, 157 Tex. Cr. Rep. 345, 248 S. W. 2d 949, said something which might be construed as contrary to the conclusion reached by Judge Graves, herein, I deem it necessary to make my position clear. I have reviewed the record in the Sowers case and find that nowhere, by bill of exception or objection, was our attention directed to the contention now before us in this case. The objection to the introduction of the judgment in the Sowers case was, “This is pertaining to another case. It is just done for the purpose of biasing and prejudicing the minds of the jurors.”
In that case the judgment recited that the appellant was present and Mr. Day testified for the state, "I am not sure whether he was here or not.” The appellant did not pursue the matter in cross-examination or raise the question on motion for new trial and did not present oral argument on the appeal. The opinion in the Sowers case says, “Whether he appeared in person or by attorney is not the issue to be proven and is immaterial.” What we should have said then was that no issue was made in the trial court as to whether the accused had been present. The above quoted sentence does not represent an accurate statement of the law. generally.
I readily confess my error and align myself with the views as expressed in Judge Graves’ opinion.
The doctrine of confrontation in all cases where imprisonment is part of the punishment actually meted out is too well rooted in our jurisprudence to tolerate any encroachment. An accused cannot be confronted with the witnesses against him unless he himself is there.
This court has held in several cases that when the accused voluntarily absented himself during the course of the trial the statute has not been violated. We agree with such holdings, but do not think them controlling. In each such cash the accused *438was present when the charge against him was read and when the evidence against him was adduced. These are the constitutional guaranties which we think must be protected.
As I view the law, Article 518, C. C. P., which authorizes a plea of guilty by an attorney, must be read in connection with Article 580, C. C. P., which requires the presence of the accused “in all cases of misdemeanor when the punishment or any part thereof is imprisonment in jail.”
I agree that the judgment should be reversed.