Court Opinion

ID: 9777626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:17:18.011311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:57.548478
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(dissenting).
The original opinion was predicated upon prosecutorial misconduct. The majority opinion now concedes that the State called Green to the stand at the time in question.
As further evidence of the prosecutorial misconduct set forth in the original opinion, we quote from the colloquy between the prosecutor and the court, in the jury’s absence.
THE COURT: Now before you start your argument before the Court, I will ask you this question: What is the purpose of asking these questions?
MR. GLOVER: Judge, I have a signed confession by this man * * *
THE COURT: That’s not the question I asked you, Counsel. I asked you: What is the purpose of asking these questions ?
MR. GLOVER: To see whether or not he will confirm or deny any question, or to see whether or not he will testify.
*802Johnson v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 162, 319 S.W.2d 397, relied upon by the State, in which the writer prepared the opinion for the Court, is not here controlling because in that case it appears that the prosecutor had talked to the witness during the noon hour and the witness had told him that he would testify for the State. There was a clear showing of no prosecutorial misconduct. We further observe that Johnson was affirmed because there was no objection and no adverse ruling which would constitute the basis for a reversal.
I respectfully dissent to the granting of the State’s motion for rehearing.