# Patterson v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · January 6, 1965 · 387 S.W.2d 390

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9643359

## Case

- **Full name:** Clovis PATTERSON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** January 6, 1965
- **Citations:** 387 S.W.2d 390; 1965 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1056
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by McDONALD
- **Judges:** Morrison, McDonald, Woodley
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9643359

## Opinion text

ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
McDONALD, Presiding Judge.
We have carefully reviewed our opinion in this cause in view of the forceful motion filed herein by the State. True, the facts in the Offerle v. State case, 123 S.W. 2d 350 , are different from the case at bar. Judge Christian wrote the opinion for the Court in Offerle’s case and cited with approval Bowlin v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 452 , 248 S.W. 396 . The holding in Bowlin was : “It is always permissible for counsel for either side to comment on the failure of the opposing side to call witnesses which may throw light upon the transaction under investigation * * * ”. We are not in a position to speculate as to whether or not the co-indictee or co-principal, Alfred Bohannon, might have “thrown light” upon the transaction had he been called by the state as a witness. The record reflects that approximately 7 persons were present in the King’s Lounge the afternoon of the alleged offense, but the state called only one witness, the Liquor Control Board Inspector. Bohannon might have denied the transaction entirely, or he might have re *394 "fused to testify. We cannot anticipate what he might have done. On the other hand, had he been called and placed upon the stand and then refused to testify upon .the grounds that his testimony would tend ■to .incriminate him, then surely the State would not have pursued the matter further because of what we said in Washburn v. State, 299 S.W.2d 706 . We reiterate that the'holding in the Washburn case is sound, but it has no application here.
We remain convinced that this case was properly disposed of in our original opinion. Accordingly, the State’s Motion for Rehearing is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9643359. Public record. Not legal advice.