Court Opinion

ID: 9680148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:21:39.739849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:25.972452
License: Public Domain

ONION, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the affirmance of this conviction, but would do so upon the basis that appellant failed to perfect his bill of exception and would not engage in an unnecessary discussion of the purpose of a motion in limine and other matters not germane here.
Appellant’s punishment was assessed at eight (8) months in jail and at a fine of $1,000 by the jury following his conviction for bookmaking.
In his sole ground of error appellant complains of the court’s action in sustain*672ing the State’s motion limiting the cross-examination of Glen Charles Hill, a witness for the prosecution.
The record reflects that Hill, while working as an undercover agent for the Amarillo Police Department, made the case against the appellant and was thus the State’s material witness.
Prior to trial the State filed at least three motions in limine, requesting in the first that defense counsel be instructed not to mention, refer or allude to “any alleged action of misconduct, if any, on the part of” Hill, “which did not result in a conviction in a court of record for a crime involving moral turpitude” and further requested counsel be instructed not to refer to “the sentence” in the State v. Bluejacket case. The other two motions in limine by the State asked that defense counsel be instructed not to elicit the “results” of the Phillips case or the “disposition” of the Bewley case.
The court entered a written order granting all three motions. It also orally granted the three motions before the commencement of trial, stating when counsel asked for a clarification as to the motions as to Bewley and Phillips, “Well, am I correct that Bewley was dismissed and that Phillips was acquitted?” The prosecutor replied in the affirmative. In connection with the first motion mentioned, the court stated:
“Counsel, I’m not telling you that if you will present this to me outside the hearing of the jury it won’t be admissible, that’s not what I’m saying. I am simply saying I want to hear it outside the presence of the jury before you go into it. I would like to have your cases, counsel.”
On cross-examination of Hill appellant established that, among other places, Hill had lived in Sayre, Oklahoma, where he had been employed by the police department for “not quite a month.” At this point appellant’s counsel approached the bench and stated, out of the hearing of the jury, “Your Honor, I want to go into him being fired from the Police Department in Sayre.” The court indicated, “I will stand with the Motion (in limine),” to which action the appellant excepted. At no time did the appellant by informal bill of exception, offer proof by a concise statement with the court’s approval (Article 40.09, Sec. 6(d)(1), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.), or otherwise show what the excluded testimony would have been if he had been permitted to elicit it in the jury’s presence. This court is thus not in a position to review appellant’s contention. See Hicks v. State, 493 S.W.2d 833 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973).
Appellant asserts in his brief that Hill was fired from his employment with the Sayre, Oklahoma Police Department because of his involvement with burglaries. It is well established that this court cannot accept as fact allegations or assertions in an appellate brief which are not supported by the record. Washington v. State, 500 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Devereaux v. State, 473 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).
It would be on this basis that I would affirm the case.
I would pretermit any discussion about the purpose of a motion in limine, for its discussion is totally unnecessary to the proper disposition of the case. This case simply does not turn on whether the State filed a motion in limine. Just why the majority reaches out and attempts to discuss the purpose of such motion and seemingly attempts to limit the scope of such motion is not clear. Nor would I gratuitously hold that a ruling on a motion in limine is not such an objection which need not be renewed in the presence of the jury. See Article 40.09(6)(d)(3), Vernon’s Ann.C.C. P. In the instant case, the State’s motion *673in limine was granted and there was no testimony offered out of the jury’s presence to which there had been an objection as contemplated by the above mentioned statute. Here, the motion in limine, as granted, prevented the appellant from offering certain testimony before the jury, without first obtaining the approval of the court. The appellant’s counsel did approach and request to elicit or attempt to elicit the testimony desired; the court refused. Under this fact situation, it puzzles this writer as to just why the majority would add footnote #1 to its opinion. It does not fit the facts of this case. If the majority means to hold that where the defendant, as opposed to the State, makes a motion in limine which is granted the defendant still must object if the State violates such ruling on the motion in limine during the trial on the merits, why make such holding where that is not the fact situation ?
But again, even where those were the facts, the favorable ruling on the defendant’s motion in limine might not necessarily relate to or involve objected to evidence offered out of the presence of the jury, and, even if it did, why make a distinction between where evidence is offered out of the jury’s presence on a motion in limine or other occasions where the evidence is offered out of the jury’s presence? Why so limit Article 40.09(6)(d)(3), supra? I am at a loss to understand why the provisions of this statute were injected into this case or why there had to be a discussion of the purpose of a motion in limine at all.
I concur in the result only.
MORRISON, J., concurs in this opinion.