Court Opinion

ID: 9775372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:55:51.807258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:25.554516
License: Public Domain

KELLER, Judge,
concurring.
I disagree with the majority insofar as it equates “fault” with “illegal action.” Doing so reads something into the statute that is not there. And the issue is not the morality of the act that lands the principal in jail. See op. at n. 3. A person may cause and be at “fault” for a consequence without having committed an illegal act or an immoral one.
It seems to me that the trend of the eases cited by the majority is, more or less, to hold that: (1) a principal confined in the same state is excused from appearing because the “same” government that wants him to appear one place is holding him elsewhere; and (2) a principal confined out-of-state is not excused from appearing unless he was delivered there *102by the government that wants him to appear. Since the government of a foreign country is, for these purposes, equivalent to the government of a foreign state, I would hold that a principal confined in a foreign country is not excused from appearing unless he was delivered there by the same government that wants him to appear.
In this ease, there is no evidence that Vences was delivered to Mexican authorities by McLennan County authorities. The affidavits were thus insufficient to defeat the State’s motion for summary judgment. I therefore concur in the Court’s judgment.