Court Opinion

ID: 9766668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:56:26.840525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:24.577854
License: Public Domain

HOWELL, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. I cannot join the majority’s conclusion that a mistrial was manifestly necessary in this case for two reasons.
First, the State waived its right to obtain the relief requested because it failed to make a timely request. The record reflects that the cross-examination of the officer continued to its conclusion, that the State engaged in redirect examination of the officer, that the officer was excused as a witness, and that the State began the examination of another witness. At that time, the State moved to disqualify defense counsel and thereby prevent him from further participation in the case. The Court granted the motion. Having deprived the appellant of counsel, and acting on its own motion, the court declared a mistrial. Although the court went beyond the State’s motion, the motivating force and the virtually inevitable result of the State’s motion was the mistrial.
The record reflects no timely objection by the State and no request for an instruction to the jury to disregard defense counsel’s comments. Were defense counsel in the posture in which the State finds itself, we would not hesitate to hold that the right to exclude counsel had been waived for want of a prompt motion. E.g., Nash v. State, 651 S.W.2d 432, 433 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1983), aff'd, 664 S.W.2d 343 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). There is no reason why this rule should not apply with equal force to the State.
Second, the term “manifest necessity” for entry of mistrial means that there must exist a “high degree” of necessity. Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 506, 98 S.Ct. 824, 831, 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978). This record presents no necessity of that magnitude. Neither is it permissible for the State or the court to create manifest necessity by excluding defense counsel unless the situation is such that no fair trial may ensue with the continued presence of defense counsel. Whether defense counsel may or may not have been subject to disciplinary action for accepting or continuing employment after he realized or should have realized that he might be a witness has no bearing on the question whether manifest necessity existed. The law specifies ample means for the enforcement of the Code of Professional Responsibility other than the disruption of trials. Insofar as this case is concerned, the only question raised by the double jeopardy provisions of our State and Federal Constitutions is whether a fair trial could be had after the exchange between the officer and defense counsel. See Schaffer v. State, 649 S.W.2d 637, 639 (Tex.Crim.App.1983).
In analyzing this question, it should be noted at the outset that whether the officer had a black eye had only a slight connection with appellant’s guilt of the offense charged. Appellant was not on trial for assault and he was never accused of having struck the officer. The relevance of *909the black eye only bore upon the question of the officer’s credibility.
Further, in arguing its motion to exclude counsel, the State never contended that it had any plan to call defense counsel as a witness. In fact, the prosecutor refused to commit himself on this question. Accordingly, the mistrial could not have rested on the ground that the State was deprived of the testimony of defense counsel. On the other hand, defense counsel made it plain in resisting the State’s motion that he did not expect to offer his own testimony. Having made this commitment, the attorney would not have been permitted to testify on behalf of his client.
Neither could any possible prejudice to the State arising from counsel’s failure to testify, after having disputed the officer’s black eye testimony through cross-examination, rise to the level of manifest necessity. A request for an instruction to disregard, a far less intrusive remedy, would have adequately cured the situation.
The only remaining possible support for a claim of manifest necessity would be that appellant would have been deprived of a fundamentally fair trial if his attorney did not testify. In other words, was appellant’s counsel rendering ineffective assistance by declining to testify? We cannot so hold. There is no direct showing of what counsel’s testimony would have been — only an innuendo. Again, the matter only related to the officer’s credibility. Very likely, it would have been unwise for counsel to pit his uncorroborated testimony with that of the officer. By engaging in a “swearing match” with an apparently disinterested public servant, counsel could have easily destroyed his effectiveness as an advocate. It follows that the decision not to testify fell within the category of reasoned trial strategy and could not be held to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
In sum, mistrial was granted without a showing that the testimony of defense counsel would or should have been offered by either party. Where was the manifest necessity? It cannot be grounded on some need to grant specific performance of the Code of Professional Responsibility because sanctions against the attorney are the ordinary remedy for attorney misconduct.
I dissent. The plea of double jeopardy should be sustained and acquittal granted.