Court Opinion

ID: 9679133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:41:53.274836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:10.576117
License: Public Domain

HUGHES, Justice
(concurring).
My concurrence in the affirmance of this case is based upon this statement in the opinion of Associate Justice O’Quinn, “The trial court in this case at all times permitted McGregor’s counsel to examine and use the notes and memoranda the witness Wise actually referred to in refreshing his memory while testifying.”
My concurrence is not to be construed as approving what the court has to say about the authority of the court to conduct in camera examination of proffered evidence to determine its relevancy, particularly in this case because the documents sought to be examined are not of a privileged nature.
In camera proceedings are destructive of the adversary system so essential to the administration of justice and the establishment of truth, a system of which we are justly proud. See address of Justice James Norvell before the Texas Bar Association in 1968 in Houston reported in July — August 1968 issue of Trial Lawyers Forum.
In camera proceedings to determine relevancy of evidence are not even tolerated in *760cases where the national security is involved. Alderman v. United States, U. S. Supreme Court, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). They certainly should not be tolerated in this case.
For the record, I did not examine the contents of the sealed envelope.