Court Opinion

ID: 9671698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:42:14.521894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:11.599345
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
WOODLEY, Judge.
Appellant construes our opinion on original submission as holding that the constitutional provision for compulsory process for witnesses is directory only. We disclaim any intention of so deciding.
There is nothing in this record to show that process to Harris County was sought or that the witness could not have been served with subpoena in Harris County between the date the information was presented and the time Newton left to go to Abilene. For all this record shows he may have been present when the first continuance was granted.
Appellant’s counsel appeared before a deputy district clerk serving County Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County, and presented a sworn application for issuance of subpoena for the witness Flannery R. Newton “whose location is Boy’s Dormitory, McMurray College, which is located in Abilene, Texas,” returnable November 25, 1958, at 9 o’clock A.M.
The application was filed, endorsed “11-20-1958. Not issued. Art. 475: Application for out-county witness. Op. Atty. Gen. 1939, No. 569, out-county witness cannot be recognized, subpoenaed or attached in misdemeanor cases in county court, nor can such witness recover compensation in such cases.”
The clerk acted in strict compliance with the attorney general’s opinion and the opinion of this court in Hickerson v. State, 161 Texas Cr. Rep. 140, 275 S.W. 2d 801.
*552The attorney general’s opinion referred to was issued in 1939. The same year the legislature enacted the Hot Check Law (Art. 567b V.A.P.C.) and in Section 5 provided that in misdemeanor prosecutions under said act process should issue for out-county witnesses as in felony cases.
The legislature thus recognized that there was no general statute authorizing the issuance of process for out-county witnesses in a misdemeanor case pending in county court. The legislature has not since passed such a general statute.
We adhere to our holding in Hickerson v. State, supra.
The judge of the county court at law was not asked, under his inherent power, to issue or order issued compulsory process for the out-county witness. We entertain no doubt of the inherent power of the county court or county court at law to issue compulsory process for witnesses when necessary in order to protect the rights of the defendant guaranteed by Art. 1, Sec. 10, of the Constitution of Texas. Burttschell v. Sheppard, 123 Texas 113, 69 S.W. 2d 402. We agree that the legislature is without authority to deprive an accused of such right. Roddy v. State, 16 Texas App. 502; Homan v. State, 23 Texas App. 212, 4 S.W. 575.
The clerk of the County Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County was without authority to issue witness subpoena to be served in Taylor County, and his failure to issue the out-county subpoena did not entitle appellant to a continuance or postponement, or require that a new trial be granted.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.