Court Opinion

ID: 9684267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:52:15.560586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:54.292150
License: Public Domain

ONION, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
While I agree the instant case must once again be reversed, I cannot agree for the reason stated by the majority. The prosecutor perhaps should not have told the jury the co-defendant Minniefield had been convicted of “this armed robbery,”1 but I conclude that argument was invited by defense counsel’s earlier argument set forth in the majority opinion. Further, in light of the evidence before the jury of Minniefield’s participation in the robbery and the rule that the State may respond to invited argument, the error, if any, was harmless.
I would reverse, however, for another reason. Frank Horton testified for the State that the appellant and Minniefield had urged him to participate with them in the instant robbery, but because of his size, over three hundred pounds, and easy identification and because he was scared, he left *631the car in which the other two were riding and did not participate in the robbery. His testimony was most damaging to the appellant. At the conclusion of the State’s case in chief the defense offered a stipulation, agreed to by the State, that the indictment against Horton for robbery in the instant case had been dismissed. The court instructed the jury that Horton was an accomplice witness as a matter of law and that a conviction could not be had upon his testimony unless the jury first believed the testimony to be true and further it had to be corroborated, etc. Subsequently, the defense counsel mentioned that Horton’s testimony by itself was “not sufficient by law” and that it came from a “successful accomplice” witness “in that he shifted the blame to somebody else and got the case against him dismissed.”
In his closing argument at the guilt stage of the trial the prosecutor argued that Horton was telling the truth and, in response to the stipulation as to the dismissal order and counsel’s argument, stated: “Well, in that connection, before a criminal case can be dismissed, The State must file a Motion and present evidence into Court to dismiss it, and the Court must sign the order, and the Court will not dismiss the case unless he is convinced that the man is innocent. That’s why it was dismissed against Frank Horton. . ” The objection that there was no finding of innocence by the dismissal order was overruled.
Article 32.02, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., provides:
“The attorney representing the State may, by permission of the court, dismiss a criminal action at any time upon filing a written statement with the papers in the case setting out his reasons for such dismissal, which shall be incorporated in the judgment of dismissal. No case shall be dismissed without the consent of the presiding judge.”
It is clear that a judge cannot dismiss an indictment under Article 32.02, supra, until a State’s motion to dismiss is presented to him, Flores v. State, 487 S.W.2d 122 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), but it is also clear that a case cannot be dismissed until the presiding judge consents to such order.
It does not follow, however, that when the court consents to a dismissal order for whatever reasons stated in the State’s motion to dismiss the court is finding the accused is innocent of the crime charged as argued by the prosecutor, and there is no showing in the evidence that the dismissal revealed such a finding by the district judge who entered the order.
The unsworn testimony of the prosecutor that Horton had been found innocent by another district judge injected new facts into the case and was manifestly harmful to the appellant, especially in light of the trial court’s instruction that Horton’s testimony was to be considered as that of an accomplice and the issue of the complaining witness’ identification of the appellant raised before the jury.2
I concur in the reversal.
DOUGLAS, J., joins in this concurrence.

. Adams v. State, 531 S.W.2d 626 (Tex.Cr.App., delivered Jan. 14, 1976); Walker v. State, 530 S.W.2d 572 (Tex.Cr.App., delivered Dec. 17, 1975).

. The complaining witness did identify the appellant as one of the two robbers, but he admitted that he had attended a lineup and had been unable to identify the appellant, that a police officer told him one of the robbers was in the lineup and actually pointed out the appellant to the complaining witness, but he was still unable to identify him until he later saw the appellant sitting on a bench in the courthouse.