Court Opinion

ID: 9779487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 22:02:24.887112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:26.964541
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING
VANCE, Justice.
On original submission, we held that the court erred in quashing the subpoenas of two newspaper reporters based on their assertion of a “reporter’s privilege.” Coleman v. State, 915 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.App. — Waco 1996). As the State conceded, the privilege does not exist in a criminal trial. Ex parte Grothe, *88687 S.W.2d 736, 739 (Tex.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 944, 106 S.Ct. 308, 88 L.Ed.2d 286 (1985).
We , also held that the burden at the hearing on the motion to quash was on the reporters. Coleman, 915 S.W.2d at 86. The reporters did not testify at the hearing nor did they attach their affidavits to the motion. Coleman made a prima facie showing of materiality by his sworn applications for the subpoenas. Tex.Code CrimProcAnn. art. 24.03(a) (Vernon Supp. 1996); see 41 GeoRGE E. Dix & RobeRT 0. Dawson, CRIMINAL Practice and Procedure § 27.53 (Texas Practice 1995). Under these facts, where the reporters neither raised a privilege nor presented any evidence to contradict Coleman’s prima facie showing of materiality, the court erred in quashing the subpoenas, and Coleman was denied his right to compulsory process.
The State’s Motion for Rehearing is denied.
THOMAS, C.J., not participating.