Elodia Cruz, Individually and as Next Friend of Dee D. Cruz, a Minor Child v. Sergio Hinojosa and Alicia Hinojosa, Individually and as Guardian of Alberto Hinojosa, a Minor; Alberto Hinojosa; E-Z-GO A

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 4th District Court of Appeals » 1999 » Elodia Cruz, Individually and as Next Friend of Dee D. Cruz, a Minor Child v. Sergio Hinojosa and Alicia Hinojosa, Individually and as Guardian of Alberto Hinojosa, a Minor; Alberto Hinojosa; E-Z-GO A

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 04-97-00755-CV

Case Date: 12/01/1999

Plaintiff: State of Texas and Aransas County, Texas

Defendant: John R. Agnew, etal.--Appeal from 156th District Court of Aransas County

Preview:Elodia Cruz, Individually and as Next Friend of Dee D. Cruz, a Minor Child v. Sergio Hinojosa and Alicia Hinojosa, Individually and as Guardian of Alberto Hinojosa, a Minor; Alberto Hinojosa; E-Z-GO A Division of Textron, Inc. & Textron, Inc.--Appeal from 381st Judicial District Court of Starr County
MAJORITY | MAJORITY CONCURRING OPINION No. 04-97-00755-CV Elodia CRUZ, Individually and as Next Friend of Dee. D. Cruz, Appellant v. Sergio HINOJOSA and Alicia Hinojosa, Individually and as Guardians of Alberto Hinojosa, E-Z Go, a Division of Textron, Inc., and Textron, Inc., Appellees From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas Trial Court No. DC - 95-65 Honorable John A. Pope III, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice Concurring opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice Sarah B. Duncan, Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 1, 1999 I concur with the result reached in the majority opinion. I write separately, however, to address an issue raised at oral argument. During oral argument, counsel for Cruz contended that allowing trials to be conducted at locations other than the county courthouse when not specifically authorized by Commissioner's Court would result in the possibility that a trial court could hold trials at any location it desired, even secret locations. The specter of "star chamber" proceedings was raised. The threat of secret proceedings should not be taken lightly. As noted by the court of criminal appeals: Defendants have the right to a speedy and public trial, and the constitutional requirement that court proceedings occur in the county seat is a fundamental way to keep our ... process open and public. . . Stine v. State, 908 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)(plurality op.). The traditional requirement that court be held at a fixed location can be traced to the Magna Carta. See Tex. Const. art. V, 7, interp. commentary (Vernon 1993). The "county seat" requirement thus should be viewed as a procedural safeguard ensuring a defendant's basic
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/15257.html[8/20/2013 7:36:26 PM]

right to a public trial. Fain v. State, 986 S.W.2d 666, 672 n. 8 (Tex. App.-Austin 1999, pet. ref'd). While we recognize the potential for secret proceedings, that is not what happened in this case; nor did commencement of trial in a location other than the county courthouse deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed. CATHERINE STONE, JUSTICE Publish

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/15257.html[8/20/2013 7:36:26 PM]

Download 15257.pdf