# Ludwig v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 19, 1991 · 812 S.W.2d 323

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9647018

## Case

- **Full name:** Ronald David LUDWIG, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 19, 1991
- **Citations:** 812 S.W.2d 323; 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 149; 1991 WL 105627
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Miller
- **Judges:** Miller, McCormick, White, Overstreet, Campbell, Baird
- **Cited by:** 102 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/9647018

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding $1 million aggregate bail excessive for two alleged murders and one alleged capital murder when evidence showed that defendant’s family could “scrape together, at best, $10,000” and bail set by court required “ten times th[at] amount”
- observing that at that time, “this Court [had] yet to condone a bail amount even approaching 11 seven figures, even in a capital case.”
- observing that at that time, “this Court [had] yet to condone a bail amount even approaching seven figures, even in a capital case.”
- noting that the court is “to be governed in the exercise of [its] discretion by the Constitution and by the [article 17.15 factors]”
- noting that the court is “to be governed in the exercise of [its] discretion by the Constitution and by the article 17.15 factors”

## Opinion text

MILLER, Judge,
concurring.
The plurality opinion implies there is a conflict between the provisions of Art. 17.-15, V.A.C.C.P., and Art. 56.01, V.A.C.C.P., regarding whose safety the trial judge may consider when setting a bail amount, and that Art. 17.15, which specifically and solely addresses bail setting, must prevail over *326 Art. 56.01. See at p. 325. I do not necessarily believe that these two statutes cannot be harmonized and both be made effective.
An excellent case can be made that the statutes are pari materia and therefore must be construed with reference to each other. See V.T.C.A. GovtCode § 311.-026(a) (if general provision conflicts with special or local provision, provisions shall be construed to give effect to both if possible). Also see discussion in Cheney v. State, 755 S.W.2d 123, 126-27 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (well-settled by this Court that where two statutes are found to be pari materia, effort is made to harmonize and give effect to both).
However, “[w]e need not resolve this question today,” as the plurality notes at p. 325. Thus, with these comments, I concur in the result.
CAMPBELL and BAIRD, JJ., join.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9647018. Public record. Not legal advice.