Court Opinion

ID: 9667689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:52:31.522115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:39.848158
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DAVIDSON, Judge.
If appellant was correct in his contention that the witness Jean Fields was indicted for an offense growing out of the same transaction, he should have availed himself of benefits afforded by our severance statute (Art. 651, Vernon’s C. C. P.). If not the same transaction, the witness was not incompetent to testify.
A motion merely to dismiss the accusation against the coindictee did not contain the statutory requirements necessary to secure a severance, and was therefore insufficient. The motion, for that reason, was properly overruled.
The matter which appellant raised upon motion for new trial as to the prejudice existing against him and aroused by the newspaper publicity should have been presented by motion to change venue, inasmuch as the offense as charged in the indictment was a felony.
One of the purposes of the change-of-venue statute is to remove the case from prejudicial atmosphere, before trial. The better practice, always, is to follow the procedure provided by statute.
In our original opinion, we disposed of appellant’s contention that the special prosecutor should have been denied participation in the case as a prosecuting attorney, upon the gen*566eral theory that employment of special counsel for the state in a criminal case is authorized.
Our attention is directed to the fact that, here, the special counsel for the state was not employed or paid a fee by anyone but was entirely a volunteer who volunteered his services as counsel to assist the state in the prosecution of the case because of the newspaper account of the case and the publicity given thereto and discussions thereof.
Appellant insists that such facts take this case out of the rule upon which reliance was had in our original opinion.
We have found no case where, as here, the trial court has permitted, over objection of the accused, volunteer counsel to appear and assist the state in the prosecution where the prosecuting attorneys were not only present to conduct the prosecution but entirely able and well qualified to protect every interest of the state.
We do not want to appear as approving as a fixed rule the action of the trial court, because cases and circumstances may arise where the appearance of volunteer counsel could and would operate to prejudice the rights of the accused or to lead the jury to believe that sentiment was so aroused against the accused as to cause counsel to volunteer to assist the state.
The discretion of the trial court over such matters must be given application and his action reviewed only for the purpose of ascertaining if an abuse of discretion has occurred.
This record fails to reflect that the special prosecutor conducted the trial of the case, or took an active part therein, or so controlled the same as to evidence injury to the appellant or an abuse by the trial court of his discretion in overruling appellant’s motion for new trial.
Believing that a correct conclusion was reached originally, the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.