# State v. Frye

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · March 8, 1995 · 897 S.W.2d 324

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9772632

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. Cameron Edward FRYE, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** March 8, 1995
- **Citations:** 897 S.W.2d 324; 1995 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 23; 1995 WL 92799
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Keller
- **Judges:** Meyers, McCormick, Mecormick, White, Mansfield
- **Cited by:** 103 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/9772632

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that it was permissible for trial court to dismiss indictment based on “prosecutorial misconduct” when a defendant’s right to counsel was impaired
- rejecting State's argument that dismissal was improper under Johnson and that lack of precedent precludes a violation of a particular constitutional right as a basis for dismissing a charging instrument with prejudice
- holding that “dismissal of an indictment . . . may be necessary to adequately protect a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel”
- explaining that when charges are dismissed, the parties are no longer in legally adversarial positions
- affirming 9 dismissal of indictment where prosecutor contacted defendant directly—even though defendant was represented by counsel—and obtained information regarding defense strategy and evidence to defendant’s detriment

## Opinion text

*333 KELLER, Judge,
dissenting.
I part company with the majority and concurring opinions over one issue: whether the trial court had authority to dismiss the indictment against appellee without the consent of the state. Because I believe that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to do so, I dissent.
In State v. Johnson, 821 S.W.2d 609, 612 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), this Court addressed the specific question of whether a court has any authority to dismiss a criminal case without the prosecutor’s consent. Recognizing that a court’s authority to act is limited to those actions authorized by constitution, statute, or common law, we stated:
[W]e find no statutory or constitutional provision which would imply a court’s authority to dismiss a case without the State’s consent, in contravention of the common law. In sum, there is no general authority, written or unwritten, inherent or implied, which would permit a trial court to dismiss a ease without the prosecutor’s consent.
Johnson, id., at 618 .
Because the trial court lacked the authority to dismiss the indictment without the consent of the State, I respectfully dissent.
MeCORMICK, P.J., and WHITE and MANSFIELD, JJ., join.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9772632. Public record. Not legal advice.