Court Opinion

ID: 9777625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:17:18.007683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:57.547050
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DOUGLAS, Judge.
Appellant was tried with Charles Edward Jones whose case was appealed and was affirmed and is reported in 456 S.W.2d 132, Tex.Cr.App., where the identical issue was presented and overruled.
On original submission of the present case the controlling issue was discussed and the case was reversed because, as the opinion stated, the calling of the witness Green by the State without knowing what he would testify to amounted to prosecu-torial misconduct.
The reasoning for such a rule is that the inference before the jury would be that co-indictee witness would have answered in behalf of the State had he not refused to testify.
The appellant and not the State first called Green as a witness and the following transpired:
“MR. LANDAU: (Appellant’s counsel) Mr. Bailiff, will you call Jackie Green now?
I would like to call Jackie Green, one of the people — one of the co-principals in this case. He is under indictment.
I would like to call him as a witness.
“MR. GLOVER: (Assistant District Attorney) Judge, we would rather have testimony from the witnesses instead of Mr. Landau.
“THE COURT: Raise your right hand. (Witness sworn.)
*800“THE COURT: Mr. Green, you are under indictment, as I understand it, in this same case, are you not?
“MR. GREEN: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: Or in an offense growing out of this same occurrence.
Before you testify, you have the right to have your lawyer present. •
“MR. GREEN: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: Do you want your lawyer present before you testify?
“MR. GREEN: Yes, sir.
“MR. LANDAU: I can’t ask him — I can’t inquire of him—
“THE COURT: Sir?
“MR. LANDAU: I can’t make any further questions of him?
“MR. NEAL: (Assistant District Attorney) He can ask for his lawyer to be brought down here, Judge, if he wants to.
“MR. LANDAU: John Chitwood.
“THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bailiff, would you ask Mr. Chitwood to come to the courtroom?
You may leave the witness stand.
“MR. LAUDAU: Your Honor, to expedite this matter, is it possible to have the other lawyers — attorneys of the other prospective witnesses called and it might save a little time.”
Appellant then took the stand and testified to an alibi. The record reflects that the robbery occurred at 8:10 A.M. on March 3, 1968. Appellant testified to his whereabouts after 8:00 A.M. and did not testify as to his whereabouts before then.
When it was determined that Green’s counsel was out of the city, another attorney, Honorable Robert Maloney, was appointed for and conferred with Green. Mr. Maloney made Green available as a witness. The State then called Green as a witness and asked if he was at his stepsister’s house at 5:30 A.M. on the day of the robbery. Mr. Maloney objected and claimed Green’s privilege for him. No ruling of the trial judge was obtained. When the State asked the question again, Mr. Ma-loney claimed the privilege for Green again. The court then ascertained from Green personally that he did not wish to testify. At this time appellant’s counsel objected for the first time. No other questions were asked, and, of course, no incriminating answers were given. The witness was excused.
In his argument to the jury, Mr. Landau, appellant’s counsel, asked the jury to note resemblance between Green and the appellant in an apparent attempt to raise an issue of mistaken identity.
When the State recalled Green the inference had been established in favor of appellant.
Vargas v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 442 S.W.2d 686, cited in the original opinion, is not in point. There the State called a co-indictee witness who claimed the Fifth Amendment right even under the threat of contempt and the prosecutor stated, “He’s already been convicted of the offense for which he is to be questioned.” Again in the present case the appellant called the witness and then court-appointed counsel made him available as a witness.
McClure v. State, 95 Tex.Cr.R. 53, 251 S.W. 1099, was reversed because a witness not under indictment called by the State refused to testify and the prosecutor argued to the jury about the refusal to testify and inferred McClure’s guilt. The Court held that McClure could not be charged with the concealing and withholding the testimony.
In Johnson v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 162, 319 S.W.2d 397, in an opinion by Judge Morrison, this Court stated:
“Appellant’s last contention is that the court committed fundamental error, though no objection was made at the time, in permitting the witness Malone to be called as a witness by the State after *801he had told the court that he would like not to testify because his lawyer had advised him ‘it was best not to testify,’ and relies in argument upon the relatively recent case of Washburn v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 164 Tex.Cr.R. 448, 299 S.W.2d 706, 707. In Washburn, the questions were asked over the vigorous protest of the appellant, and we said: ‘ * * * None of the questions were answered by the witness Nelson. Such questioning covered twenty-one pages of the statement of facts and was in detail as to names, dates and places. By these fact-laden questions the state was permitted to plant in the jury’s mind full details as to how they claimed this crime was committed, and yet the only substantive evidence which they were producing was the answer of the witness that he refused to answer on the ground that his answers might tend to incriminate him, which of course was no evidence at all.’
“We find no such situation before us here. As soon as it appeared that Malone would refuse to testify on the grounds that his answers might incriminate him, he was excused.
“Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.”
In Johnson the co-indictee was originally called by the State, and after he told the court he did not wish to testify, he was questioned by the State as shown by one full page of the statement of facts. After he formally claimed his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, he was questioned by the State and this covers some four pages. He was asked, among other things, about his activities with Johnson and Taylor at Brownsville where the automobile was stolen and at Matamoros where the proof showed the three tried to sell it.
In the present case no incriminating question was asked. The Johnson case, supra, presents a much stronger case for reversal, but it was affirmed.
It is apparent that appellant called Jackie Green as a witness in order to show mistaken identity. He argued to the jury that Green resembled appellant. This was a part of the strategy of the trial. The State will not be charged with knowledge that a witness called by a defendant will not testify in the absence of proof.
The fact that Green was asked if he was at his stepsister’s house at 5:30 in the morning does not bear upon alibi. If he answered yes, or no, neither would have been helpful to the State nor harmful to the defendant.
No harm or reversible error is shown. We refuse to overrule Jones v. State, supra, decided June 10, 1970.
The State’s motion for rehearing is granted and the judgment is now affirmed.
ONION, J., concurs in the result.