Court Opinion

ID: 9779166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:39:07.122087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:22.859744
License: Public Domain

DORSEY, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the result reached by the majority; however, I disagree with the majority’s conclusions in its disposition of appellant’s first point of error that the remedy provided by the statute is the exclusive remedy for its violation under all circumstances.
We have a partial record before us consisting of a portion of the testimony of two prosecution witnesses: the arresting officer and the one who administered the intox-ilyzer. There is nothing in the record we have to indicate the videotape would be in any way exculpatory. The record does indicate that videotape machinery was available to the Victoria Police Department, yet they did not videotape this appellant because of some departmental policy. However, the departmental policy is not explored in the record except for a hint that, because of his high intoxilyzer reading, .26 blood alcohol content, Mr. Green was not videotaped.
Section 24, Acts 1983, ch. 303 of Article 6701l-1 note mandates that a county with a population in excess of 25,000 purchase and maintain videotaping equipment so that a peace officer arresting a defendant for DWI may visually record the defendant’s appearance within a reasonable time after arrest. If the recording is not made, the evidence is forever lost. Under certain circumstances the failure of the State to obey the legislative mandate could be the equivalent of the suppression of material exculpatory evidence that is critical to a fair trial. I am unwilling to agree that the sole remedy available under any and all circumstances is the admission of evidence of the State’s violation of its statutory mandate.