# Rosales v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 13, 1999 · 4 S.W.3d 228

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748885

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael F. ROSALES, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 13, 1999
- **Citations:** 4 S.W.3d 228; 1999 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 112; 1999 WL 812403
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Womack
- **Judges:** McCormick, Mansfield, Keller, Holland, Womack, Keasler, Meyers, Johnson, Price
- **Cited by:** 279 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748885

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- holding proof that victim was stabbed or struck was sufficient

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748885. Public record. Not legal advice.