Noel Betancort Ramon v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 216th Judicial District Court of Kendall County

CONCURRING OPINION
No. 04-02-00219-CR
Noel Betancort RAMON,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 216th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 3808
Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Paul W. Green, Justice

Concurring opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice, joined by Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 10, 2003

I concur in the judgment of the majority. I write separately, however, because I believe that permitting the prosecutor to testify was error, and as to the prosecutor, a violation of Rule 3.08(a) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. See Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct. 3.08(a), reprinted in Tex. Gov't. Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. A (Vernon 1998). The circumstances giving rise to the prosecutor's request to testify did not, in my opinion, present "extraordinary circumstances or . . . compelling reasons." See Riddle v. Cockrell, 288 F.3d 713, 721 (5th Cir. 2002) (holding that a prosecutor should be allowed to testify only in extraordinary circumstances). If the State perceived the introduction of Exhibit 11 as impeachment of the DPS laboratory analysis or the prosecutor's motive, the State could have easily discredited the attempted impeachment through its questioning of the State's forensic expert. Taking the "highly unusual and potentially prejudicial" route of allowing the sole prosecutor to take the witness stand was simply unnecessary. Under the standard of review governing this court's conduct, however, I agree that harmful error has not been established.

Catherine Stone, Justice

Do Not Publish