Court Opinion

ID: 9758887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:54:47.646449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:29.382894
License: Public Domain

BEN Z. GRANT, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion, but I would urge that this case not be read broadly to encompass all types of discovery against a criminal defendant. Our holding excludes constitutional considerations because the constitutional contentions were not addressed because of improper briefing.
^The United States Constitution would prohibit some discovery from an accused, with or without a statute. For example, in a civil case, the question generally referred to a production of “any persons with knowledge of relevant facts....”3 Such a question in a criminal case would violate the Fifth Amendment and differs from the United States Supreme Court case cited by . the majority asking the defendant to disclose the names of witnesses he intends to call at trial to establish an alibi defense.
Where properly raised, the constitutional prohibition should be carefully reviewed to avoid errors of constitutional magnitude in permitting discovery of the defendant. When constitutional prohibitions are involved, the harm analysis on which the ruling in this case is based would not be applicable.

. See William V. Dorsaneo, III, Texas Litigation Guide: Civil Trial Procedures § 95.100(2000).