# Carroll v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · January 24, 1996 · 916 S.W.2d 494

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775385

## Case

- **Full name:** Johnny Eugene CARROLL, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** January 24, 1996
- **Citations:** 916 S.W.2d 494; 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 9; 1996 WL 22736
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Meyers
- **Judges:** Meyers, Keller, Baird, White
- **Cited by:** 384 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/9775385

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 t…
- holding impeachment of the witness to show bias toward the State should have been allowed because the witness had a pending criminal charge with the same prosecutor’s office with possible punishment as a habitual criminal

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775385. Public record. Not legal advice.