Court Opinion

ID: 9858084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:14:19.44803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:25.407800
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

McCORMICK, Presiding Judge.
A jury convicted appellant of possession with intent to deliver N-hydroxy-3, 4-me-thylenedioxyamphetamine, also known as ecstasy. After finding the enhancement allegation to be true, the jury assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement for twenty-five years and a fine of $5,000.00. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction after finding the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to continue prosecuting the case after she testified as a witness in the case. Brawn v. State, 883 S.W.2d 389, 391 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1995). We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to address that determination. We reverse.
On the night of November 14,1991, Donald Burr, an officer employed by the Texas Department of Public Safety and Highway Patrol Service, stopped appellant for speeding on Interstate 35. After appellant got out of the car, Burr noticed that he seemed unusually nervous, that he could not stand still, and that he moved his hands quickly, often putting his hand inside his coat. At Burr’s request, appellant walked back to his car to get his driver’s license, reached inside the car on the driver’s side, and then handed Burr a driver’s license. While Burr wrote out the speeding citation, he became increasingly concerned because appellant continued to act overly nervous and to put his hand in an inside jacket pocket.
When Burr spoke with the passenger, Gordon Albert, Jr., he smelled marihuana inside the car. Albert admitted he and appellant had smoked marihuana earlier. Burr returned to appellant, who also admitted he and Albert had smoked marihuana earlier in the evening. After appellant would not take his hand out of his coat pocket, Burr and his partner handcuffed him and searched him for weapons. In appellant’s pocket Burr found a large bag of pills. Appellant claimed they were steroids. The pills were later identified as ecstasy. Burr again spoke with Albert and discovered a baggie containing cocaine in Albert’s jacket pocket.
Appellant was indicted for possession with intent to deliver ecstasy and for possession with intent to deliver cocaine. Albert was indicted for possession of cocaine. Three or four days prior to appellant’s trial the charges against Albert were dismissed.
Albert testified at appellant’s trial that after appellant had first gotten out of the car, he came back to the car and handed Albert a baggie containing something. Albert stated that it was dark, that he did not know what it was and, without thinking, put it inside his coat pocket. He also testified that after they were arrested appellant assured him that he would get Albert out of trouble since Albert was not involved and that he would hire a lawyer for Albert. Albert testified that he did not have a deal with the State to testify, even though his case had been dismissed a few days before appellant’s trial.
Burr testified that he saw appellant return to the car to get his driver’s license, but did not actually see him get the license. Burr stated that he did not see appellant reach into his pocket and hand anything to Albert when appellant went back to the car. He also stated that he was not able to see anything in particular, except that appellant went back to the car.
Appellant testified that he thought the pills were steroids, that the cocaine was not his, and that he did not know Albert possessed cocaine. He also stated that he presumed Albert had a deal with the State to testify against him in return for having Albert’s case dismissed.
After the defense rested its case, the prosecutor attempted to offer a certified copy of the dismissal of the case against Albert to show the case was dismissed because Albert *229passed a polygraph examination, not because of any deal. The trial court did not permit admission of this dismissal. The prosecutor indicated that she was the only one who knew why the case was dismissed. She wanted to rebut appellant’s claim that there was a deal, but she expressed reluctance to be a witness since she was prosecuting the case. Eventually, the trial court permitted the prosecutor to testify there was no deal with Albert requiring him to testify against appellant in return for the dismissal of the case.
Before argument to the jury, defense counsel asked the trial court not to allow the prosecutor to continue prosecuting the case because she had “made herself a material witness.” He stated it was unfair to the defendant for the prosecutor to put her credibility in issue and then also argue to the jury. The trial court denied the request.
Defense counsel reiterated his theory to the jury that Albert had a deal with the State to testify. During her argument to the jury, the prosecutor responded, “Now, the Defense Attorney says that I say no deal was made and I’m your public servant and I’m lying to you. If you have a problem with the case against Gordon Albert being dismissed, tell me after this case is over.”
The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to continue prosecuting the case after she had testified. Brown, 883 S.W.2d at 391. The Court of Appeals did not give any legal basis for its holding. It merely mentioned a footnote consisting of dicta in Beasley v. State, 728 S.W.2d 353, 357 n. 5 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), which, without addressing an issue or stating facts, noted that it would be highly improper for a district attorney to serve as a witness and then continue prosecuting the same case. The Court of Appeals then stated, without explanation, that it could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that this error did not contribute to appellant’s conviction. Brown, 883 S.W.2d at 391.
The State presents several arguments challenging the Court of Appeals’ holding that the trial court erred in failing to remove the prosecutor. The State argues the prosecutor did not violate the applicable disciplinary rule because the prosecutor’s testimony was not directed to establishing an essential fact in the case.1 The State also argues the Court of Appeals erred to reverse the conviction solely on the basis of any violation of a disciplinary rule because appellant failed to show his rights were violated or that he was deprived of a fair trial. We agree with the latter argument; therefore, we find it unnecessary to decide whether any disciplinary rules were violated in this case.2
Appellant’s brief to the Court of Appeals did not claim his rights were violated by the prosecutor’s noncompliance with a disciplinary rule. Appellant’s brief relied solely on a disciplinary rule violation as the basis for reversing his conviction. We set out the entirety of appellant’s point of error that presented this issue to the Court of Appeals.
“The lead prosecutor in the case, Ms. Heather Rattan, testified in the guilt/innocence phase of the trial. The testimony was given in rebuttal to the Appellant’s claim that a deal had been made with the co-defendant, wherein the case against the co-defendant would be dismissed if he testified against the Appellant.
“Ms. Rattan testified that the case against the co-defendant had been dismissed, but denied any deal was made. (Citations to record omitted).
“After giving testimony in front of the jury the prosecutor was allowed over objection *230to continue prosecuting the case. The prosecutor read the enhancement paragraph (citation to record omitted), gave the closing argument for the State, in both the guilt and punishment stages. (Citations to record omitted).
“The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that it is highly improper for a prosecutor to serve as a witness, then resume conducting the State’s case, then argue to the jury that his version of events was more credible than was Appellant’s. Beasley v. State, 728 S.W.2d 353, at 357 n. 5 (Tex.Cr.App.1987)”
And, the Court of Appeals relied solely on a disciplinary rule violation to reverse the conviction. Brown, 883 S.W.2d at 391.
However, the applicable rule here is that violation of a disciplinary rule does not require a reversal unless a defendant can show the disciplinary rule violation affected his substantial rights or deprived him of a fair trial. See Pannell v. State, 666 S.W.2d 96, 98 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) (ethical violations are to be dealt with by means of the administrative mechanisms specially established for dealing with unethical conduct); see also Armstrong v. State, 897 S.W.2d 361, 366 n. 5 (Tex.Cr.App.1995); State ex rel Eidson v. Edwards, 793 S.W.2d 1, 6 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). The Court of Appeals erred to rely solely on a disciplinary rule violation to reverse the conviction. On this record, appellant’s remedy is to file a complaint with the State bar. See Armstrong, 897 S.W.2d at 366 n. 5. We overrule footnote five of Beasley, 728 S.W.2d at 357, to the extent it conflicts with this opinion.
We reverse the judgment of the Second Court of Appeals and remand the cause to that Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

. Rule 3.08, State Bar Rules, in relevant part provides:
"A lawyer shall not accept or continue employment as an advocate before a tribunal in a contemplated or pending adjudicatory proceeding if the lawyer knows or believes that the lawyer is or may be a witness necessary to establish an essential fact on behalf of the lawyer’s client, ..."

. However, we note that Section 2.5(c), Texas Prosecutor Standards and Guidelines, provides that a prosecutor shall not be disqualified from testifying as a witness "when the need of the testimony arises during a proceeding.” Section 2.5(c), Texas Prosecutor Standards and Guidelines, as prepared by the Prosecutor Standards and Guidelines Study Commission, a grant-funded project of the Criminal Justice Division of the Office of the Governor, State of Texas, February 1993.