In Locklin v. State, 75 S.W. 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1903), the court in the prosecution of a co-defendant appointed an attorney named Martin as an assistant district attorney to assist the district attorney in representing the State before the grand jury. Id. at 306. Martin subsequently became a judge and presided in Locklin's trial. Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals held Judge Martin was not so connected with the prosecution as to be disqualified, because he prosecuted the co-defendant in a separate cause and Judge Martin was never counsel for the State on the prosecution of Locklin. Id. The Court noted that the trial court was authorized to appoint an attorney pro tem in the absence of the district attorney, but that the district attorney had not been absent in the prosecution of the co-defendant. Id. On rehearing, the court reiterated that Martin had been a mere volunteer in the co-defendant's case; because the district attorney was present, "the judge had no authority to appoint him to go before the grand jury. And we apprehend, if he had undertaken to prosecute a case on behalf of the state, by virtue of an assumed official position (the district attorney being present at the time), on objection he would not have been permitted to do so." Id. at 310.