Opinion

Rosales v. State

  • 4 S.W.3d 228
  • 1999 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 112
  • 1999 WL 812403
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Filed
Oct 13, 1999
Status
Published
Author
Womack
On the bench
McCormick, Mansfield, Keller, Holland, Womack, Keasler, Meyers, Johnson, Price
Cited by
279 cases

holding although indictment may allege manner and means of committing offense in the conjunctive, jury may be charged in the disjunctive and a conviction on any method alleged will be upheld if the evidence supports it

How later courts described this case

  • holding although indictment may allege manner and means of committing offense in the conjunctive, jury may be charged in the disjunctive and a conviction on any method alleged will be upheld if the evidence supports it
  • overruling Hicks and holding that the due- diligence requirement was met when a member of the grand jury testified that the jury was unable to determine the manner and means
  • holding proof that victim was stabbed or struck was sufficient
  • providing that the erroneous admission of evidence is usually harmless where substantially the same evidence is properly admitted elsewhere

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

WOMACK, J.,

filed a concurring opinion in which MANSFIELD and KELLER, JJ., joined.

I join the opinion of the Court.

Today we broach the issue of reconsidering our treatment of the allegation in the indictment that the offense was committed by means “unknown to the grand jury.” See ante at 231. Our past requirement that this allegation be proved at trial is not justified. The only substantial rights of the defendant that could be denied by such an allegation are the rights to indictment by a grand jury in a felony case 1 and to notice of the nature and cause of the accusation. 2 These are requirements for the State’s pleading, which are appropriately raised and decided before trial. 3 The remedy for the grand jury’s lack of diligence in discovering and alleging the means of committing the offense would be to sustain an exception to the indictment. The notion that this allegation creates an issue of fact to be proved to the trial jury is close to bizarre.

. Tex. Const, art. I, § 10.

. U.S. Const, amend. VI; Tex. Const, art. I, § 10.

. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. arts. 1.14(b) (objection to indictment must be raised before date of trial or right to object is waived and forfeited), 28.01, § 1(4) (pre-trial hearing shall be to determine exceptions to indictment), 28.01, § 2 (preliminary matters not raised seven days before pre-trial hearing will not thereafter be allowed, except for good cause shown), 28.03 (testimony may be obtained on matters involved in written pleadings).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.