This page of Baker's Legal Pages contains casenotes from recent decisions of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. This information is made available as a free public service for your personal, non-commercial use. While every effort has been made to provide accurate material at this site, it is provided "as is" and no representations are made that it is free of mistakes or inaccuracies. If you inform me of any mistake or inaccuracy that you find here, I will make every effort to determine what corrections are required and to make those changes.

Below are casenotes from recent opinions of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, supplementing Baker's Texas Criminal Evidence Handbook. Each casenote is linked to the text of the opinion from which it was derived.

For links to other casesnote pages supplementing Baker's Texas Criminal Evidence Handbook, see the Criminal Evidence Handbook Casenotes Listing.

For links to casesnote pages for other handbooks, see the Main Casenotes Listing.

If you already know the name of a particular recent case of interest, you may go directly to that opinion from the Table of Recent Opinions.

notes (CCP Art. 24.05. Refusing to Obey)

• Habeas corpus relief granted where witness was held in contempt for failure to obey subpoena and appear as witness in criminal trial, with punishment assessed at 180 days confinement and $500 fine. 24.05 CCP, not Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 176.8, applies to failure to obey subpoena in criminal case, and under 24.05 only punishment is $500 fine. Ex parte Dotson (June 5, 2002, No. 73,986)

presenting issue (CCP Art. 24.12. When Attachment May Issue)

• The three-step procedure for preserving error when a subpoenaed witness does not appear is (1) the party must request a writ of attachment, which must be denied by the trial court; (2) the party must show what the witness would have testified to; and (3) the testimony that the witness would have given must be relevant and material. If all three requirements are met, reversible error will result unless the error made no contribution to the conviction or to the punishment. Sturgeon v State (May 21, 2003, No. 1699-01)

• Counsel's assertion of the anticipated testimony on the record in open court was sufficient to preserve error when trial court denied his request for a writ of attachment for a subpoenaed witness under 24.12. Defense counsel in instant case did everything required to preserve the error for appellate review. He complied with Rule 33.1; he made his request for the writs, which was denied; and he described, on the record, the basis for his request, i.e., the need to present alibi witnesses and the testimony which those witness would be expected to give if they were brought to testify. Sturgeon v State (May 21, 2003, No. 1699-01)

rules (CCP Art. 24.12. When Attachment May Issue)

• Because def relied heavily on alibi witnesses, without their testimony he was unable to present a defense. The testimony of the missing witnesses was neither cumulative nor irrelevant. Denial of the right to attach the witnesses was, in effect, denial of the right to present a defense. Therefore, there was a proper showing of relevance and materiality. Sturgeon v State (May 21, 2003, No. 1699-01)

• The plain language of 24.12 makes it clear that attachment of a witness who has been duly served with a subpoena is a matter of right. 24.12 does not contain any language requiring sworn testimony or affidavits. Sturgeon v State (May 21, 2003, No. 1699-01)