Court Opinion

ID: 9770309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:58:12.914499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:38.549465
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Judge,
concurring.
I write only to express my disagreement with the majority’s rationale. From the record, I find that the juror’s iteration of the facts given him by the unknown person match the facts that were subsequently given by the complainant. Thus, the unknown person must have been the complainant in this cause. Further, all the parties assumed at trial and admit on appeal that the juror did encounter a State’s witness. I would, therefore, find no abuse of discretion in excusing the juror. See McMahon v. State, 582 S.W.2d 786 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). However, because I believe this case may be properly resolved under the holding of Carrillo v. State, 597 S,W.2d 769 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), I concur in the result.