Court Opinion

ID: 9674696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:34:04.695682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:29.183279
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
Disagreeing with the analysis, findings and conclusions and the judgment of the Court, I would be content to join the opinion of Judge Tom Davis without writing separately on the issue, but for the approach taken by and tenor of the majority opinion and one subsidiary aspect of his dissenting opinion.
To begin with, the majority has not even correctly identified what issue is actually before the Court. Wide the mark is its opening statement, “The main contention is that the prosecution suppressed evidence.” As shall be shown, the prosecuting attorney expressly disclaimed possession, and implicitly then any knowledge, of any statement other than the one he had furnished counsel for appellant. The real contention is that *321once existence the writing in question became known to all appellant was entitled to examine and utilize it appropriately.
The principal factual issue in the case was whether the vagina of the prosecutrix was penetrated by the penis of appellant. It was first presented by her testimony in response to understandably somewhat leading questions from the prosecutor:
“Q: Okay. Now, did he try to perform a sex act from behind you?
A: Yes.
* * * * * *
Q: Okay. Did he first, can you tell us whether or not he tried to put his sexual organ in your rectum?
A: Yes.
Q: And did he do that or try that for a while?
A: About 5 minutes.
Q: Did he later on, can you tell us whether or not he penetrated your vagina with his sexual organ after-wards, in other words did he do regular intercourse afterwards in that same position?
A: I would say he mostly, you know, did it from behind.
* * * * * *
Q: Now, before you all were through there at the car did he go in your vagina, in your sexual organ after he had gone into your rectum?
A: I am not certain really, I believe.
Q: What do you mean?
A: I couldn’t say for sure, but I know he did go from behind.”
Leaving the matter of penetration in a plainly uncertain state, the prosecutor went on to other subjects and then returned to the issue. After a few more questions about trying to achieve a climax “both ways,” the State drew from the prosecutrix the following:
“Q: You know? Did his sexual organ pass the outside of your vagina when you said he was trying? In other words you mentioned a moment ago both ways.
A: Yes. He tried both ways.
Q: Okay. And did he put it in?
A: Yeah, in from behind. Yeah.
Q: In your vagina?
A: Yes. I mean yes.”
On cross-examination, after getting the spelling of her married name, appellant revisited the matter of penetration:
“Q: ... while you were testifying you once said that you could not be sure that he penetrated or entered or went into your vagina that night. Do you remember saying that today?
A: Yes.
Q: That is the truth of the matter, isn’t it?
A: Yes.”
Further questioning drew answers that are set forth in the majority opinion, and need not be reiterated here. Clearly they show an other than lucid effort to claim penetration of the vagina. In its entirety, the ambiguity of her testimony on the issue of penetration may be considered by reasonable persons as a consequence of her difficulty in communication, her shyness in speaking more graphically or, indeed, a reflection on her credibility and, perforce, the reliability of her account.
It was shown that the prosecutrix was taken to a hospital for examination and treatment. Appellant inquired whether she stated at the hospital “that his private part had gone in your vagina” and she responded that they had asked her questions. Asked if she told them that “it had,” her response was: “I told them exactly what happened. I just answered the questions directly.” Whereupon, at appellant’s request, the court excused the jury and permitted a voir dire examination concerning statements that the prosecutrix may have given, which drew from her that shortly after returning from the hospital she made a statement at the sheriff’s office, believing it was “the same night.” With that, appellant presented for his bill of exception a written statement made by prosecutrix some three days *322after the offense and called on the State to produce and deliver the statement made by prosecutrix on the night of the offense. The State insisted that the one it had just delivered to appellant was the only statement in its possession. The prosecutrix testified that she did not recall whether she made one or two statements but she was sure that Deputy Bob Eaton would know. Whereupon Deputy Eaton was called as a witness by appellant and it was revealed that then Deputy Roger Hammack was the one who had talked to the prosecutrix and had made a report. With the permission of the court Eaton retrieved from files in the sheriff’s office the Hammack report.1 The deputy agreed that the report was a summary of conversations with the first officer who talked to prosecutrix in the sheriff’s office and that it stated what she had to say to him and what she claimed had happened to her. The State protested that what started out as a hearing to determine whether or not there were two signed statements made by prosecutrix had turned into an effort to discover everything in the files of the sheriff and of the State, which should be then and there halted because appellant “is not entitled to that kind of discovery under any circumstances.” The court then had a copy of the report made, identified it as Court’s Exhibit 1, heard sufficient testimony to authenticate it, denied a motion that appellant be permitted to examine its contents and sealed the exhibit in an envelope that is a part of the record on appeal.2
The three page report is actually two accounts: one by Deputy Hammack bearing the date and time, 2:15 a. m., when he was first advised of the offense, that relates his actions in observing the accused in the sheriff’s office, taking her to the hospital, talking to nurses and doctors, returning to his office and getting the report from prosecu-trix that is there set forth; the second is a summary of a conversation had with a nurse at the hospital at 11:00 p. m. on the same day. Omitting matters not germane to our issue, the first account includes a conversation with the examining nurse who said that prosecutrix had advised “that she was raped from the back” which the nurse believed that “she could have meant the rectum.” An officer accompanying Ham-mack is reported to have asked prosecutrix “if the attacker had forced her from the rear and she advised that that was correct.” As to the second conversation with the examining nurse, the Hammack report reflected “that in her opinion penetration was made in the rectum” and that sperm did not show up in the tests that were made.
By his first ground of error appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to permit him to examine and use the Hammack report. I agree.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) extended Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112, 55 S.Ct. 340, 342, 79 L.Ed. 791 (1935) and Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 215 216, 63 S.Ct. 177, 178, 87 L.Ed. 214 (1942) to hold:
“.. . the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the *323evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good or bad faith of the prosecution.”
In Means v. State, 429 S.W.2d 490, 493-495 (Tex.Cr.App. 1968), after carefully collecting and studiously analyzing the authorities, Presiding Judge Onion, writing for the Court, perceived certain emerging “guidelines and rules,” one of which he expressed as follows:
“Reversible error is also committed where the prosecutor negligently or inadvertently fails to disclose evidence which may exonerate the accused or which may be of material importance to the defense, even though not offered as testimony at the trial and even though the accused’s counsel is not diligent in his preparation for trial.”
Four years later interim developments were canvassed by the Court in Crutcher v. State, 481 S.W.2d 113 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972), again through Presiding Judge Onion writing for a unanimous Court. Reversing the judgment of conviction because an offense report containing a description of the offender given by an eyewitness, which description was inconsistent with the trial testimony of that witness, was not made available to the accused, the Court noted the discussion of the general rule in and quoted from Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), as pertinent here:
“... When the ‘reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence,’ non-disclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within this general rule ... We do not, however, automatically require a new trial whenever ‘the combing of the prosecutor’s files after the trial has disclosed evidence possibly useful to the defense but not likely to have changed the verdict A finding of materiality of the evidence is required under Brady, supra, [373 U.S.] at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1190, 10 L.Ed.2d 215. A new trial is required if the ‘false testimony could ... in any reasonably likelihood have affected the judgment of the jury .. . ’ Napue v. Illinois, supra, [360 U.S.] at 271, 79 S.Ct. at 1178, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217.”
Accordingly, the standard applied by Crutcher to the prior report of the eyewitness giving a description of the offender was whether it “may have had an affect on the outcome of the trial.” Here the testimony does not come from a witness but the complaining party herself. The report at issue was an account of statements she had made shortly after the offense had been perpetrated.
More recently the Supreme Court categorized the rule of Brady v. Maryland, supra, into at least “three quite different situations,” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2397, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976).3 One of the situations is, of course, Brady itself. Its rationale is that withholding evidence on demand of an accused “which, if made available, would tend to exculpate him or reduce the penalty helps shape a trial that bears heavily on the defendant” and make it “a proceeding that does not comport with standards of justice” even though suppression is not “the result of guile.” Brady, supra, 373 U.S. at 88, 83 S.Ct. at 1197. As Agurs points out, the holding in Brady was that suppression of the statement deprived him of due process, “noting specifically that the statement had been requested and that it was ‘material’ . . . (and) . . . implicit in the requirement of materiality is a concern that the suppressed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial,” 427 U.S. at 104, 96 S.Ct. at 2398.4
In Smith v. State, 516 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. Cr.App. 1974) the Court applied the Brady standard to determine whether an offense *324report which included a description of the robber given by the complaining witness was erroneously withheld from the accused by the trial court at the end of a discovery hearing that was held during the course of the trial.5
But unlike Smith, and in line with Crutcher, supra, 481 S.W.2d at 116-117, I believe that, penetration being an important issue in the case, the credibility and reliability of the complaining witness was obviously of utmost significance and knowledge and use of the contents of the Ham-mack report might well have exonerated appellant, but certainly might have affected the outcome of the trial.6
When the Supreme Court of the United States casts tests for determining constitutional violations in terms of “may have had an effect on the outcome of the trial” or “in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgment of the jury,” Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 271, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 1178, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959), it means that the practice under consideration is “inherently suspect” so that actual prejudice to the accused need not be found. See Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963); Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 85 S.Ct. 546, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1964); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965) and Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507,16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966). So in a situation that invokes the rule of Brady v. Maryland, or its progeny, a reviewing court performs its duty in determining whether the “inherently suspect” practice could “in any reasonable likelihood” have affected the judgment of the jury or the outcome of the trial. Accordingly, I do not devote the attention given to messages to the trial court from the jury and the significance attached to them by the dissenting opinion of Judge Tom Davis. I believe the test applicable here for the conclusion he reaches is met without regard to the matter of jury communications.
On the other hand, the majority opinion does not squarely address the test. Rather it insists that denial of the Hammack report may be upheld on the basis of one or another different theory: First, that the holding in Means v. State, 429 S.W.2d 490 (Tex.Cr. App. 1968) has not been followed-a contention satisfactorily disposed of, in my view, by Judge Tom Davis in his opinion-and, second, that its examination and construction of the report at issue show it was not exculpatory. I cannot accept the manner in which the majority opinion develops the second theory. Brady, supra, teaches that a reviewing court seeks to determine whether the evidence is “material either to guilt or to punishment” and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 765, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), the updated basis of Crutcher, supra, holds that since reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence, evidence affecting credibility is material and within the Brady rule. In a case like the one before us, then we perform our duty as a reviewing court by looking to the undisclosed writing against a backdrop of testimony to determine if the writing affects reliability of a witness’s testimony bearing strongly on the issue of guilt. It is not, and should not be, the function of an appellate, court to go *325beyond an examination for materiality into the realm of fact finding, for that is exclusively the province of the jury in this case. Yet, the majority opinion engages in extreme exercises of semantical gymnastics to derive meanings from this word or that phrase in its endeavors to characterize the report as not exculpatory. Such as exercise, once a finding of materiality has been made by a reviewing court, is the prerogative of the fact finder on a new trial and this Court is well advised to avoid the rigors.7
Because ground of error one is not sustained, and judgment of conviction reversed and the cause remanded, I dissent.
ROBERTS and PHILLIPS, JJ., join.

. Apparently the Hammack report was not maintained in a file identifiable by the name of the prosecutrix. Deputy Eaton testified, “It is in a folder along with probably 15 or 20 other cases. That is the way we file them.”

. I have developed at some length the manner in which the Hammack report came to light in order to demonstrate the fortuity by which its existence became known. Thus, the deputy who made it had long since left his employment and his whereabouts were not known to Deputy Eaton; the report was maintained in a file along with a number of other cases; the prosecuting attorney apparently did not have a copy of it for Eaton had to leave the witness stand and obtain it from his office; the prosecutor insisted the report was not discoverable. On the other hand, there is not the slightest suggestion that appellant was aware of its existence: There were no pre-trial discovery motions; the one statement of the prosecutrix was tendered to appellant during his voir dire examination of the prosecutrix; it was her volunteered remark that Deputy Eaton might know of a second statement which led to Eaton and, in turn, to the Hammack report. In these circumstances we do not have a situation remotely comparable to Means v. State, 429 S.W.2d 490, 496 (Tex.Cr.App. 1968) and reliance on it by the majority opinion is misplaced.

. Strictly speaking each category involves post-trial discovery of information unknown to the defense before or during trial. Here, of course, the Hammack report became known during trial and was “suppressed” only by the adverse ruling of the trial court. But for ana-lyrical purposes the somewhat different “set” is less significant than the policies that are implicated by failure to disclose,

. All emphasis is added by the writer of this opinion unless otherwise indicated.

. This situation is distinguishable from the one in Frank v. State, 558 S.W.2d 12 (Tex.Cr.App. 1977) which follows the teaching of Agurs in the third situation, different from Brady itself, typified by Agurs-whether in the absence of a specific request the prosecutor has any constitutional duty to volunteer exculpatory matter to the defense and, if so, what standard of materiality gives rise to that duty. So also Ransonette v. State, 550 S.W.2d 36 (Tex.Cr. App. 1976).
Smith concluded that knowledge of the particular description would not have exonerated the accused or have affected the outcome of his trial.

. In moving for permission to examine and use the report, appellant asserted several reasons: First, as Deputy Eaton had already testified, that the report contained statements made by the prosecutrix to the first law enforcement officer to talk with her following the claimed sexual assault so that, secondly, the statements would be exculpatory or, three, tend to subtract from the credibility of the prosecutrix in the eyes of the jury or, fourth and alternatively, would be relevant to and beneficially persuasive on the question of punishment.

. In its scattershot the majority opines that the report in hands of counsel for appellant could not have been used to impeach testimony of the prosecutrix at trial, thereby implying that the defense could not utilize the report for whatever value counsel thought it may have. How and when the report might be offered and in what fashion it might be used is another exercise that this Court should leave to the regimen of counsel for the accused. Cf. Ridyolph v. State, 503 S.W.2d 276, 277 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974). In quoting from United States v. Agurs, on this point, the majority apparently does not understand that the excerpt is part of musing by the Supreme Court in formulating a standard of materiality for writings not specifically requested by defense counsel.