*1 * * might in the statement what was contained see prosecutor though stipulated denied even it was also possession. in statement his appellant Exception 3 recites Formal Bill No. by regard statement to written the same Singleton. witness, Mercedes fourth the State’s in the recent presented This is the same which volume), and Pruitt v. (p. cases Gaskin supra volume). said: In Pruit * * “* made available should have been the record avail- injury, and the counsel for the State refusal of appellant’s counsel was able not appellant permitted inspect, deprived to prejudiced the court’s if he produced.” refusal to Gaskin, supra, we said: made after applies “The rule demand is where purpose of and is for the has testified direct examination impeachment purposes, cross-examination, possibly whether trial to re- the statement has been used the witness before memory not.” his fresh failing permit appellant
For the error of the court might any occurred, perfect show judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Ruth Ester Pruitt v. State January 34,207. 31, 1962 Rehearing Overruled State’s Motion *2 Cutler, Houston, appellant. John Briscoe, Frank Attorney, Robertson, Jr., District Samuel H. Dally, Ward, Jr., Carl E. F. P. Attorney, Lee Assistants District Houston, Douglas, Austin, Attorney, and Leon State’s for the state. Judge.
MORRISON, murder; punishment, The offense is the life. disposition view of our of this a statement of facts necessary. will not be deemed alleged
The Septem- indictment that the offense occurred in ber, 1951, (so reveals, but trial far this as this record the first case) trial of place did not until 1961. take June of During the cross-examination of the first for the witness State, appellant developed that the had made written concerning police immediately the the offense to after incident, the ney the read same in the office district of the attor- day trial,
the before the and that such statement was in the possession prosecutor. of pro- the Demand was then made purpose duction statement for the of cross-examination of denied, its maker. requested This was and counsel then exception. request statement be of his of This bill was also denied. eye procedure
The same two was as to the other except they witnesses for the were recalled at the State conclusion of incorporation demand made for the the State’s case and was
of as a their statements into the record court, higher appeal “in order the on * * * * * * might be to determine whether or not able necessary and witness.” relevant cross-examination of the presents almost is raised the identical as volume). There, quoted from Gaskin Rep. 2d Moreno v. Texas and Cr. S.W. that such made available for statement should have been the record available counsel for the
and that the refusal of State per- not appellant’s counsel deprived appellant inspect, mitted to prejudiced by the court’s refusal produced. pointed out, judgment
For the is reversed errors cause is remanded.
state’s motion
WOODLEY, Presiding Judge. requests “clarify
The state utilized be making requested report statement avail- offense or written able for the record”.
First, express only where the in- view cases justice require terests of or his counsel should defendant privilege inspecting previous be denied a statement of state’s witness after he has testified on direct examination. State, supra, may
We in Gaskin v. there be cases justice inspection where the interests of the defendant or his counsel be denied even after the trial. statement, ground,
aWhen withheld on such is demanded for the why of the record on know no reason exception cannot be made a of the bill of refer- ence, copy reproduction properly the statement or thereof being up certified separate sent with the record in a sealed en- velope showing with endorsement thereon that it is a inspection only. bill of of the Court The state’s motion for is overruled- Frank Brown v. State 34,452-