McClendon v. State

The prosecuting attorney should have been aware of our prior opinion in this case, McClendon v. State, 509 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), and of the need to either secure the necessary witness or to reindict. Moreover, when the prosecuting attorney did recognize his untenable position, he did not seek a continuance or attempt to lay a predicate for the admission of the witness’ testimony at the original trial. See Raley v. State, 548 S.W.2d 33 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Galvan v. State, 461 S.W.2d 396 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). Under the circumstances, I must agree that there was no manifest necessity to…