Bramlette Holland Browder v. Rachel Moree and Clarence Dean Hinds, Jr. Appeal from 261st District Court of Travis County (concurring memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-19-00381-CV Bramlette Holland Browder, Appellant v. Rachel Moree and Clarence Dean Hinds, Jr., Appellees FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-FM-17-002349, THE HONORABLE KARIN CRUMP, JUDGE PRESIDING CONCURRING OPINION Although I concur in the Court’s judgment, I write separately to expressly disapprove of a trial judge’s raising objections to the admission of evidence sua sponte and then sustaining her own objections. As the Court observes, a trial judge has broad discretion in conducting trials, and it generally is within a trial judge’s discretion to question witnesses during trial. See Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 240–41 (Tex. 2001) (discussing trial court’s discretion in conducting trials); Sklar v. Sklar, 598 S.W.3d 810, 824–25 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.) (observing that trial court has broad discretion over conducting trials and collecting cases addressing reasons that trial judge may question witnesses). But a trial judge’s discretion in conducting a trial does not extend to taking the further step of sua sponte objecting to and then sustaining an objection to disallow the admission of evidence. To the extent that the Court’s opinion could be construed as condoning this type of conduct by a trial judge, I would disagree with any such conclusion. Nevertheless, with this comment, I concur in the judgment because in the context of this case, I agree with the Court that the record does not reflect that the trial judge’s challenged conduct rose to the level of showing bias or prejudice. See Dow Chem. Co., 46 S.W.3d at 240–41 (discussing judicial bias and partiality). __________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly Filed: June 2, 2021 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.