Court Opinion

ID: 9684946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:19:05.496728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:01.251921
License: Public Domain

NYE, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion bases the disposition of the case on alleged error in admitting the former testimony of co-defendant Anderson who, after testifying at appellant’s first trial, refused to do so at the retrial. I fully agree that it was error to allow Anderson to testify against the appellant in the first trial without disclosing to the jury the existence of *878the understanding by which Anderson was to receive favorable treatment in her own case in exchange for her testimony against appellant. However, I am not convinced that such error was reversible in the context of the second trial.
The second jury was apprised of the fact that Anderson’s sentence was reduced from death to fifty years’ confinement shortly after appellant’s first trial. They heard testimony that there was in fact an agreement, however vague and indefinite, to reward Anderson for her testimony by obtaining for her a lesser punishment than she had originally received for her part in the crime. The able cross-examination of Anderson by appellant’s counsel at the first trial included vigorous questioning concerning the possibility of a deal with the State’s counsel. Hearing that portion of Anderson’s former testimony certainly must have made the jury aware that there was an issue as to Anderson’s credibility. I would hold that the second jury was not deprived of the opportunity to judge the credibility of the witness for themselves.
Once the jury in the second trial came to possess the knowledge necessary to determine whether Anderson may have been motivated to testify falsely in favor of the State, any error in the admission of her former testimony was cured or rendered harmless. See Burkhalter v. State, 493 S.W.2d 214, 220 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) (dissenting opinion); United States v. Blackwood, 456 F.2d 526, 530 (2d Cir.1972). There being no reversible error, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.