Carlile v. State
Decision Date | 11 March 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 42623,42623 |
Parties | Rex Lee CARLILE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Nathan O. Newman, II, Abilene (on appeal), for appellant.
Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in the county jail and a fine of $250.00.
This appeal presents the question of whether the court may place one of the accused's attorneys under the rule when it is learned that said attorney may appear as a witness for the accused, thus depriving the accused of the assistance of one of his counsel.
Prior to the commencement of the trial, in hearings conducted in the jury's absence, it was established that on the night of his arrest apellant had employed attorney James E. Robinson to represent him; that attorney Robinson had been paid a fee and was present to represent appellant at the trial. Robert Chappell, an attorney, testified he had known the appellant 'as a friend and had him as a client since I started practicing law' (in 1950). He related he had been employed to act as co-counsel in the case shortly after the appellant's arrest. He acknowledged he had not received a fee, but understood he was to receive his remuneration from attorney Robinson, both of whom had represented the appellant in the past. Chappell admitted he might be called as a witness for the appellant since he had seen and discussed 'business' with the appellant shortly before appellant's arrest. Upon questioning by the court he acknowledged he, attorney Robinson and the appellant had discussed the ethical problem of his being a witness and an attorney and had concluded 'there wouldn't be any breach of ethics.'
The appellant testified that he had indeed employed attorney Chappell as well as attorney Robinson and wanted both to represent him in the trial of the case. He and attorney Chappell both acknowledged, however, that attorney Robinson was capable of handling the defense.
Thereafter, the court ordered attorney Chappell placed under the rule and excluded him from the court except for the time he appeared as a witness for the appellant.
Chappell's testimony was generally cumulative of several other defense witnesses who saw and observed the appellant and Chappell together a short time before appellant's arrest.
Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution, Vernon's Ann.St. relating to the rights of an accused in criminal prosecutions provides in part:
'He shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, And shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel, or both * * *.' (emphasis supplied) See also Article 1.05, V.A.C.C.P.
The accused's right to be heard by himself, or by counsel or both is a right of which an accused can under no circumstances be deprived. See Anselin v. State, 72 Tex.Cr.R. 17, 160 S.W. 713.
Article 36.03, V.A.C.C.P., provides:
1 See also Article 36.04.
It is well established that the object to be attained by placing witnesses under the rule is to prevent one witness from being influenced by that of another. Blackwell v. State, 29 Tex.App. 194, 15 S.W. 597; Cook v. State, 30 Tex.App. 607, 18 S.W. 412; King v. State, 34 Tex.Cr.R. 228, 29 S.W. 1086; Welch v. State, 66 Tex.Cr.R. 525, 147 S.W. 572; Cooper v. State, 72 Tex.Cr.R. 250, 161 S.W. 1094. The history of the rule is traceable to the Bibical story of Susanna. See 56 Tex.Jur.2d, Trial, Sec. 48, p. 374.
'A wide discretion is confided in the trial judge with regard to the application and the extent of the application of the 'rule' to the witnesses, and the exercise of this discretion will not be revised on appeal except in clear cases of abuse.' 1 Branch's Ann.P.C., 2nd ed., Sec. 365, p. 388.
The discretion, however, granted the trial judge by this statute is not an arbitrary discretion. Clary v. State, 68 Tex.Cr.R. 290, 150 S.W. 919.
Ordinarily, expert witnesses, witnesses who are attorneys in the case, and those called to testify to a witness' reputation for truth and veracity, are exempt from the rule. Johnson v. State, 10 Tex.App. 571; Powell v. State, 13 Tex.App. 244; Spear v. State, 16 Tex.App. 98; Leache v. State, 22 Tex.App. 279, 3 S.W. 539; Roach v. State, 41 Tex. 261; Pounds v. State, 89 Tex.Cr.R. 273, 230 S.W. 683; Asher v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 162, 277 S.W. 1099. See 1 Branch's Ann.P.c., 2nd ed., Secs. 366, 367, 368, pp. 390--391; 56 Tex.Jur.2d, Trial, Sec. 57, p. 388. See also Quarles v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 398 S.W.2d 935; cf. Nixon v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 602, 309 S.W.2d 454.
And it has been said the rule should not be enforced as to attorneys engaged in the particular case on trial. Boatmeyer v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R. 473, 20 S.W. 1102.
Thus, in Jackson v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 79, 115 S.W. 262, it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Of Tenn. v. Jordan
...According to one source, “[t]he history of the rule is traceable to the Biblical story of Susanna,” Carlile v. Texas, 451 S.W.2d 511, 512 (Tex.Crim.App.1970), and this Court has also dated the practice “from the days of Daniel,” Nelson v. State, 32 Tenn. (2 Swan) 237, 257 (1852). 9 Indeed, ......
-
Corbett v. State
...to be attained by placing witnesses under the rule is to prevent one witness from being influenced by . . . another.' Carlile v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 451 S.W.2d 511, 512 (citations omitted). Administration and enforcement of the rule is within the discretion of the court, Art. 36.04, V.A.C.C......
-
Webb v. State
...another witness or talking to that witness regarding his testimony. As retired Presiding Judge John Onion explained in Carlile v. State, 451 S.W.2d 511 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), the jurisprudential roots of the rule may be traced to the Biblical story of Susanna and is a concept integrally related......
-
Riojas v. State
...of our Texas Constitution provides that an accused has the right to be heard By himself, or by counsel, or both. See Carlile v. State, 451 S.W.2d 511, 513 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). This naturally encompasses the right to present a defense by one's own testimony. This is a valuable right which shou......