Court Opinion

ID: 9682781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:16:46.084405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:40.784265
License: Public Domain

DALLY, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment, but I disagree with the majority in its discussion and holding concerning the impeachment of a witness on a collateral matter.
Appellant’s initial complaint concerned his attempt to impeach the State’s chief witness, Jerry Davis, a former undercover narcotics agent. Davis testified that at 10:30 one night at the University Lounge in Odessa he made a deal with appellant and appellant’s companion, Steve Matteson, to *405purchase some amphetamine pills. Davis said the three left the lounge and went to the Cactus Motel, where he paid $210.00 and received six hundred pills; the three then returned to the lounge. On cross-examination by the defense counsel, Davis testified that one Lynn Reed was not at the lounge that night, and that he (Davis) did not sell appellant any .drugs that night. Appellant’s counsel then attempted to call Ronald Hammond as a witness to impeach Davis’ testimony which defense counsel had elicited on cross-examination. The State objected because Hammond had been in the courtroom during Davis’ testimony in violation of the Rule, which appellant had invoked. The trial court refused to permit Hammond to testify before the jury; however, on appellant’s bill of exception Hammond testified that Lynn Reed had been present at the University Lounge that night, and that he (Hammond) had witnessed Davis sell appellant six amphetamine pills at the lounge at 11:30 or 12:00 on the night in question.
Appellant urges that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the testimony of a witness in his behalf when the trial court refused to allow Hammond to testify. Appellant also argues that Hammond’s testimony was improperly excluded under our decisions in Montemayor v. State, 543 S.W.2d 93 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), and Binnion v. State, 558 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). I would not reach appellant’s constitutional claim, because Hammond’s testimony was not admissible. Consequently, appellant was not denied his right to obtain the testimony of a witness.
When a witness is cross-examirted on a collateral matter, the cross-examining party cannot then contradict the witness. The test as to whether a matter is collateral is whether the cross-examining party would be entitled to prove the matter as part of his case tending to establish his plea. Bates v. State, Tex.Cr.App. (No. 58,338, decided 1/10/79); Arechiga v. State, 462 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Gatson v. State, 387 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.Cr.App.1965). See also 3A Wigmore on Evidence, Secs. 1001-1003 (Chadbourn rev. 1970); 2 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, Sec. 467 (13th ed. 1972); 1 Branch’s Penal Code, 2d ed. 221, Sec. 200.
The correct rule was well stated and applied by Judge Roberts in Arechiga v. State, supra, as follows:
“In Gatson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 387 S.W.2d 65, this Court held that when a witness is cross-examined on a collateral matter even to impeach his testimony, the cross-examining party cannot then contradict the witness. The test as to whether a matter is collateral is whether the cross-examining party would be entitled to prove it as a part of his case tending to establish his plea
“If appellant as a part of his direct evidence, had tried to prove that Serna was in the state hospital on a particular date it would have been inadmissible. The Court, in excluding the inadmissible evidence, in no way violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as alleged by appellant . . . ”
In this case the facts about which Hammond would have testified were collateral to the issue whether appellant sold Davis amphetamine. Appellant’s defense was that, although he was present when the amphetamine was sold to Davis at the Cactus Motel, he did not take part in the transaction, and thus was not a party to the offense. Hammond was not present at the Cactus Motel. He said he saw Lynn Reed at the University Lounge, but did not see him leave or return with appellant, Matte-son, and Davis. The mere presence of Reed at the lounge on the night in question is not evidence relevant to appellant’s defense. Davis’ alleged sale of amphetamine to appellant also took place at the University Lounge and occurred subsequent to the commission of the offense with which the appellant was charged. Thus, it concerns a separate incident and does not tend to prove appellant’s defense.
Montemayor v. State, supra, and Binnion v. State, supra, are in conflict with Bates v. State, supra; Arechiga v. State, supra, and Gatson v. State, supra. Montemayor v. *406State, supra, and Binnion v. State, supra, should be promptly overruled.
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment.