with the entire statute. Stated another way, a court must always consider the statute as a whole rather than its isolated provisions[.] For a court should not give one provision a meaning that is out of harmony or inconsistent with the other provisions, although it might be susceptible to such a construction standing alone. In the end, a provision must be construed in light of the entire act, its nature, its object, and its consequences.93 So the meaning of “the court” in Article 20.21 should be determined in the context of the other provisions in Chapters 19 and 20. In that context, the term “the court” means the court that impaneled the grand jury. Given this meaning, the significance of Article 20.21 is clear. A grand jury must present an indictment to the judge of clerk of the impaneling court.94 III. Criminal law commentators have understood that a grand jury is to return an indictment to the court that impaneled the grand jury The language in Chapters 19 and 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not the only basis for the argument advanced in Gutierrez. Criminal-law commentators have long understood this to be the case. Speaking of Article 20.21 and the judges who impanel grand juries, Professors George Dix and John Schmolesky wrote:
Ron Beal, The Art of Statutory Construction: Texas Style, 64 Baylor L. Rev. 339, 374-75 (2012) (internal footnotes omitted) (emphasis added). 94 Chapter 20’s final statute is Article 20.22. This statute says that generally “[t]he fact of a presentment of indictment by a grand jury shall be entered in the record of the court.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 20.22 (emphasis added). The statute’s reference to “the court” – in the context of Chapters 19 and 20 – also refers to the impaneling court. 93
45
