Court Opinion

ID: 9772103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:07:23.487377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:42.087000
License: Public Domain

DALLY, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority incorrectly says: “Obviously there is a conflict between Rule 355 and Art. 40.09, Sec. 5, V.A.C.C.P.” Art. 40.09, Sec. 5, V.A.C.C.P. and Rule 355 of the Rules of Civil Procedure dovetail and when construed together as they should be, Arts. 38.02 and 40.10, V.A.C.C.P., provide a salutary procedure which in many instances would make unnecessary the time-consuming hearing of the testimony of witnesses. That, of course, is the wisdom which caused this Rule of Civil Procedure to be promulgated. We should recognize and embrace this wisdom rather than saying there is an obvious conflict between the rules when there is no conflict between them.
The majority says that: “To embrace these statutes and said rule would only roll us backward to dangerous shallows and shoals of Point Zamora.” This is not correct. If there is a real controversy and the State does its duty and contests a defendant’s affidavit the court should then hear the testimony and decide the issue, but when there is no real controversy and the State does not contest the defendant’s affidavit the court should not waste its time and that of others in deciding the issue.
I dissent to the manner in which the majority construes Art. 40.09, Sec. 5, V.A.C. C.P. and Rule 355 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
ROBERTS, PHILLIPS and CLINTON, JJ., join in this dissent.