Court Opinion

ID: 9681061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:43:25.458826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:32.024511
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge
(dissenting).
Under the authority cited, the appellant was entitled to inspect the document used in the jury’s presence to refresh the memory of the witness, or to lay a predicate for impeachment, at the time of his request.
That appellant was permitted to see the grand jury testimony of the Witness Dahl long after his lengthy examination was completed, and after other witnesses had testified and the state was ready to close, without any further request or demand for such inspection was not a compliance with the rule followed as recently as February 17, 1965, in Walton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 386 S.W.2d 805, that reversal will result without any showing of injury for the denial of defendant’s timely request that he be permitted to inspect any document, instrument or statement used in some way before the jury, such as in questioning a witness.
Appellant’s request was timely. The leave to inspect was not.
I respectfully dissent.