Court Opinion

ID: 9655161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:01:49.810719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:14.019443
License: Public Domain

ROBERTSON, Justice,
dissenting.
Whether a trial court should permit additional testimony after the evidence is closed is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. There is absolutely no showing of what testimony appellant would have given had the trial judge permitted him to reopen. Appellant has therefore not complied with Tex.R.App.P. 52(b). The majority excuses appellant’s failure to perfect a bill of exception on the issue because “it appears obvious that any defendant’s testimony could be material and bear directly on the main issues of the case.” I am not aware of any authority permitting an appellate court to 'presume the substance of excluded testimony in order to find an abuse of discretion by the trial court in failing to permit the evidence to be reopened so that testimony could be heard. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.