08-13-00147-CR
Tex. App.May 30, 2014Background
- In a family violence assault case, the State sought mandamus relief regarding the County Criminal Court at Law No. 1 of El Paso County, the trial court’s order related to interviewing the complaining witness.
- The defendant was represented by Theresa Caballero and the May 7, 2013 trial date was set for jury selection.
- The complainant Guzman told the court she did not want to speak to the District Attorney’s Office; the court stated the DA would not speak to her.
- The court later ordered that prosecutors could not speak with Guzman; Guzman was re-scheduled for May 14, 2013 under subpoena.
- The State sought emergency relief and the mandamus petition led to a conditional grant directing the trial court to set aside its prohibitory order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion prohibiting interview of a witness | State argues the order overstepped authority | Trejo contends the order prevented harassment of Guzman | Yes; mandamus granted; order must be set aside |
Key Cases Cited
- Meshell v. State, 739 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) (prosecutorial duties require interviewing witnesses; court cannot bar interviews)
- Healey v. McMeans, 884 S.W.2d 772 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) (ministerial standards in prosecutorial duties; discretion in prohibiting interviews is limited)
- In re State, 390 S.W.3d 439 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2012) (mandamus standard and ministerial vs. discretionary acts)
- In re State, 304 S.W.3d 581 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2010) (procedural posture for mandamus in criminal cases)
- Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) (two-showing mandamus standard in criminal appeals)