concluding that the State’s failure to allege the specific manner or means of restraint when two alternative methods for committing one offense are provided by statute, i.e., moving a person from one place to another or by confinement, makes an indictment defective and subject to a motion to quash
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the State’s failure to allege the specific manner or means of restraint when two alternative methods for committing one offense are provided by statute, i.e., moving a person from one place to another or by confinement, makes an indictment defective and subject to a motion to quash
- State must allege, in face of motion to quash, which statutory alternative manner or means of restraint it seeks to prove, whether by moving victim from one place to another or confining victim
- statutory alternatives for type of restraint, with imminent bodily injury, so once alleged, had whether by moving victim from one place to an- to be proved
- statutory alternatives for type of restraint, whether by moving victim from one place to another or confining victim, must be alleged in face of motion to quash
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ONION, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I agree that the trial court erred in overruling the appellant’s motion to quash the indictment, but I would reverse the conviction. I do not agree with Adams v. State, 707 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). If, however, Adams is to be applied, it should be applied here. The case should not be remanded to the Court of Appeals. Ping pong justice does nothing to promote the finality of judgments in criminal cases.
TEAGUE, J., joins in this dissent.