Court Opinion

ID: 9769150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:36:10.75268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:56.149935
License: Public Domain

MANSFIELD, Judge,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court. It is my opinion that appellant’s right to cross-examine a State’s "witness concerning pending charges against the witness is implicated only where the pending charges have been brought by the same prosecutorial authority (or, perhaps, another nonfederal prosecutorial authority in Texas) which is prosecuting appellant. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Carroll v. State, 916 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (Meyers, J., concurring, at 501). Cross-examination of the State’s witness concerning the pending federal charges would possibly also be within appellant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment where there was evidence that the State’s witness would derive a benefit from the State concerning any pending State charges by testifying against appellant or where there was evidence the State agreed to tell the federal authorities the witness had *636been of assistance to the State.1 See also, Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. at 321, 94 S.Ct. 1105 (Stewart, J., concurring). The mere possibility the witness may derive a benefit under federal sentencing guidelines by testifying in a State prosecution on the State’s behalf does not implicate the Confrontation Clause, based on any reasonable interpretation of the Supreme Court’s holding in Davis v. Alaska.
I join the opinion of the Court.

. The pending federal charges against the witness were ultimately dropped. In any event, at most, they could have been used only to show bias or motive and could not have been used to impeach the witness’ credibility as there was no final conviction. See Tex.R.Crim. Evid. 609.