In Ex parte Rusk, 128 Tex. Cr. 135, 79 S.W.2d 865 (1935) the prosecutor gave his reasons for a dismissal orally instead of in writing as the statute requires. The Court upheld the dismissal on the equitable grounds that the State had substantially complied with the statute. Rusk, 128 Tex. Cr. at 137-38, 79 S.W.2d at 866. Rusk does not support the appellant's argument. The Court in Rusk did not sanction an equitable enforcement of an immunity agreement, but instead ordered the release of the defendant pursuant to a dismissal that the Court found substantially complied with the requirements of the statute. Nor did the Court attempt to find substantial compliance with the statute when the trial court did not approve of the dismissal, for it held, "It is manifest from a reading of the statute that the district attorney could not dismiss a case without the permission of the court." Id. at 137, 79 S.W.2d at 866.