Court Opinion

ID: 9667295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:41:49.60627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:36.945991
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge
(dissenting).
As my many dissents have indicated, I fully share Judge Onion’s views on this *345subject. The statute is mandatory and should be followed strictly. I regret to see this Court take the position of watering down what the Legislature has seen fit to prescribe as the law of this State.1 That is not the function of this Court.
I vigorously dissent herein, but in the future will bow to the will of the majority if they do not attempt to further weaken the already loose standards which they, not the Legislature, have laid down.

. These views are also applicable to another problem recently faced by this Court. I refer to those instances where the accused has been refused the right to have the voir dire examination of the jury taken down by the court reporter. That statute, like the one faced here, is mandatory. Jones v. State, 496 S.W.2d 566 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).