Court Opinion

ID: 9656517
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:50:02.355862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:32.950394
License: Public Domain

Concurring opinion by:
CATHERINE STONE, Justice.
I concur with the result reached in the majority opinion. I write separately, however, to address an issue raised at oral argument.
During oral argument, counsel for Cruz contended that allowing trials to be conducted at locations other than the county courthouse when not specifically authorized by Commissioner’s Court would result in the possibility that a trial court could hold trials at any location it desired, even secret locations. The specter of “star chamber” proceedings was raised.
The threat of secret proceedings should not be taken lightly. As noted by the court of criminal appeals:
*553Defendants have the right to a speedy and public trial, and the constitutional requirement that court proceedings occur in the county seat is a fundamental way to keep our ... process open and public ...
Stine v. State, 908 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex.Crim.App.1995)(plurality op.). The traditional requirement that court be held at a fixed location can be traced to the Magna Carta. See Tex. Const, art. V, § 7, interp. commentary (Vernon 1993). The “county seat” requirement thus should be viewed as a procedural safeguard ensuring a defendant’s basic right to a public trial. Fain v. State, 986 S.W.2d 666, 672 n. 8 (Tex.App.-Austin 1999, pet. ref'd). While we recognize the potential for secret proceedings, that is not what happened in this case; nor did commencement of trial in a location other than the county courthouse deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed.