# Ex Parte Zerschausky

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 7, 1967 · 417 S.W.2d 279

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769998

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Stephen D. ZERSCHAUSKY
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 7, 1967
- **Citations:** 417 S.W.2d 279; 1967 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1077
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Belcher
- **Judges:** Woodley, Belcher, Morrison, Onion
- **Cited by:** 9 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/9769998

## Opinion text

ON REHEARING
BELCHER, Judge.
The majority opinion delivered June 7, 1967, denying the relief prayed for was not bottomed upon the constitutionality of the Texas Statutes (Art. 711, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P. since repealed and Art. 82, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., repealed by Act of the Legislature not yet in effect), but upon the holding that such statutes must yield to the constitutional right of the defendant in a given case to compulsory process for witnesses, including the right to put them on the witness stand; and to the further holding of the majority that the trial court was not called upon to make any ruling and made none which denied petitioner’s constitutional rights to compulsory process for witnesses or to put them on the witness stand.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Washington v. State, 87 S.Ct. 1920 , delivered shortly after the original opinion herein, is not inconsistent with the holding of the majority in that the trial judge did nothing to deny petitioner the right “to put his witnesses on the stand,” or the “right to compel their attendance in court.”
The essence of petitioner’s position is that he was denied a fair trial because the district attorney, being called as a witness by him, declined to agree that he would not object if a witness under indictment as *285 his accessory was put on the stand. We do not agree.
Petitioner’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769998. Public record. Not legal advice.