Opinion No.
Background
- Prosecutor asks whether Article 35.27 requires presiding judge preapproval before county advances travel funds to a nonresident witness.
- County uses a county credit card to prepay travel expenses for nonresident witnesses subpoenaed to testify.
- Prosecutor’s advances are paid from the county’s 'court operations' budget.
- Judges on the county’s court administration committee questioned propriety of advancing funds without prior judge approval.
- Statutory framework: Article 35.27 authorizes advances and sets reimbursement procedures; preapproval not expressly required.
- Decision: Article 35.27 does not require presiding judge preapproval; policy is county-treated; nonresident witnesses reimbursed if properly advanced; county may seek state reimbursement as assignee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 35.27 requires preapproval by presiding judge before advances. | Ligon argues no explicit preapproval required. | Abbott’s position: statute allows advances without preapproval. | No statutory preapproval required. |
| Whether a court may deny reimbursement solely due to lack of preapproval. | Nonresident witness entitled to reimbursement if advances proper. | Reimbursement depends on sworn claim approved by judge and Comptroller. | County can receive reimbursement if sworn claim approved, regardless of preapproval. |
Key Cases Cited
- R.R. Comm'n of Tex. v. Tex. Citizens for a Safe Future Clean Water, 336 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2011) (focus on plain language to ascertain legislative intent)