Court Opinion

ID: 9666905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:29:58.831653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:33.470417
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
On November 3, 1987, the people of Texas gave the State a right to appeal, pursuant to general law. Article 5, Section 26, Texas Constitution. The Legislature provided for such appeals on a limited basis. Article 44.01, V.A.C.C.P. Specifically, the State was afforded the right to appeal an order of the trial court granting a new trial. Article 44.01(a)(2), supra. These changes were made to afford redress in limited circumstances where a trial court escaped review in granting a new trial without basis in law or fact.
In Evans v. State, 843 S.W.2d 576 (Tex.Cr.App.1992), we recognized that the grounds enunciated in Rule 30(b), Tex. R.App.Pro., were not exhaustive. We did not, however, intimate that the factual proof to support an alleged ground for new trial was in any way altered by the promulgation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In the case at bar, as Judge Campbell ably demonstrates in his dissenting opinion, there is nothing in this record showing what evidence would have been presented to support the granting of a new trial. To such a drastic departure from settled precedent, I dissent.
Where a motion for new trial is made based on previously unpresented evidence, the law has always required a showing of what the unpresented testimony would have been. See, e.g., Willis v. State, 626 S.W.2d 500 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). If the motion for new trial asserts facts which are not in the record but would necessitate a *699new trial, the burden is on the defendant to establish the truth of the averments. 25 Tex.Jur.3d — Criminal Law, Sections 3553-3568.
Today the majority effectively repeals the 1987 constitutional amendment and establishes a road map whereby trial courts may, without factual or legal basis, grant a new trial and avoid review.
To such action, I also dissent.