Court Opinion

ID: 9774494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:22:19.602669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:09.171493
License: Public Domain

WALKER, Chief Justice,
concurring.
My original decision to grant Relator’s Motion for Leave to File Writ of Mandamus was a result of my “tentative opinion that relator is entitled to the relief sought ...” Tex.R.App.P. 121(c). That tentative opinion was based upon factual circumstance which mentally produced adjectives such as unfair, inappropriate, deceiving and the like. Upon thorough review, those adjectives linger still, however, mandamus is not the remedy.
The true question is whether relator shall ever have an adequate remedy other than exclusion of the evidence which is clearly for trial court determination. The real parties in interest have proposed that relator be allowed the opportunity to re-exhume “Chad’s” body and make whatever test or examination relator deems fit. The body has been admittedly altered through *488tests made by Dr. Petty. Certainly re-exhumation offers relator no present trial remedy nor fairness, but fairness is not the touchstone.
The opinion to which this concurrence is made suggests, “once again, this evidentia-ry ruling will be subject to review on direct appeal.” That it shall, however, shall that be adequate?