Court Opinion

ID: 9648895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:37:33.062486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:06.108047
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING

On rehearing, the State urges that we consider its appeal, alternatively, as a request for relief by writ of mandamus. We conclude that we cannot, and overrule the motion.
To establish that it is entitled to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the State (as any other party seeking mandamus relief) must satisfy two requirements. First, it must show it has no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm; second, the act sought to be compelled must be purely ministerial.1 An act is ministerial “where the law clearly spells out the duty to be performed ... with such certainty that nothing is left to the exercise of discretion or judgment.”2 Here, the State claims that “since the trial court’s decision relied on a case based on Frye,3 and Frye has been expressly rejected by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals since 1992 in Kelly, the trial court’s decision was clearly contrary to well-settled Texas criminal law.”
We do not believe that the trial court’s decision can be characterized as ministerial here; on the contrary, it required extensive analysis and judicial balancing of many complex factors. Neither do we think that the trial court’s reliance upon the factors set forth in Zani v. State4 was necessarily “clearly contrary to well-settled Texas criminal law,” as the State would have it. As we noted in our original opinion, at least one court of appeals has recently applied the Zani factors without correction by the Court of Criminal Appeals.5 Moreover, Zani is the only Texas case specifically addressing the problem which was before the trial court for decision; simply because Zani was penned while Frye was the standard for admission of scientific evidence does not necessarily vitiate its analysis of the factors to be considered in a situation involving hypnotically enhanced testimony.
*605The State’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

. Buntion v. Harmon, 827 S.W.2d 945, 947 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (orig.proceeding); Steames v. Clinton, 780 S.W.2d 216, 219 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (orig.proceeding); Bennett v. Paxson, 932 S.W.2d 81, 82 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1996, orig. proceeding).

. Texas Department of Corrections v. Dalehite, 623 S.W.2d 420, 424 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (orig.proceeding).

. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923).

. 758 S.W.2d 233 (Tex.Crim.App.1988).

. Soliz v. State, 961 S.W.2d 545, 548 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1997, pet. ref'd).