Court Opinion

ID: 9645860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:37:40.215275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:32.280328
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Presiding Judge
(dissenting).
Three persons were present when the alleged assault took place. They were Ethelyn Baker, the injured party, her companion Hattie Rice, and appellant, who was a stranger to the two *388women. On August 3, the state made out its case in chief, through Mrs. Baker and other witnesses who were not witnesses to the affray, and appellant testified in his own behalf and rested his case. On August 4, the state called rebuttal witnesses, including Hattie Rice. On voir dire examination of the witness, appellant was able to establish without question that the witness had been placed under the rule on the day preceding and, after the hearing of testimony had concluded, Miss Rice had talked to the district attorney, at which time he told her what Mrs. Baker had testified, to that day. The witness Rice’s testimony corroborated that of the witness Baker and was contrary to that of appellant.
In Wilson v. State, 158 Tex. Cr. Rep. 334, 255 S.W. 2d 520, we held that the trial court abused his discretion in permitting a witness, where the rule had been invoked, to remain in the court - room and hear the testimony of a witness for the state, that of the accused, and then take the stand and testify to facts cor-robating the state witness and contradicting the appellant. 1 perceive no distinction between hearing the witness testify and being told by the district attorney what the witness’s testimony had been.
I respectfully dissent.