holding that, even in the absence of express agreement with the State, cross-examination of witness with pending criminal charges about any motivation witness might have to testify favorably on the State’s behalf should be allowed
How later courts described this case
- holding that, even in the absence of express agreement with the State, cross-examination of witness with pending criminal charges about any motivation witness might have to testify favorably on the State’s behalf should be allowed
- recognizing that confrontation is the check and balance that ensures fairness 73 in our adversary system of justice, and cross-examination is the essential means by which opponents test evidence proffered against them
- recognizing that confrontation is the check and balance that ensures fairness in our adversary system of justice, and cross-examination is the essential means by which opponents test evidence proffered against them
- characterizing the purposes of cross-examination as: to identify the witness within his community so that independent testimony may be offered regarding his reputation for veracity; to allow the jury to assess witness credibility; and to allow facts to be brought out tending to discredit the witness by showing his testimony on direct was untrue or biased
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MEYERS, Judge,
concurring.
In this case the charges pending against the State’s witness originated in the same jurisdiction and were brought by the identical authorities as those for which the appellant stands accused. I therefore agree with the decision of our lead opinion to allow the defendant to use these charges for impeachment on cross-examination of this witness. However, in future contexts, should these charges emanate from another jurisdiction or authority, I would hold that release of the information to the jury is subject to a discretionary ruling of the trial court under Rule 403 of the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence. With these additional comments, I join the opinion of the Court.
WHITE, J. joins this opinion, but only concurs in the opinion of the Court.