holding that when the State alleges that the date of the offense was “on or about” a certain date, it is only required to show that the offense occurred before the indictment was handed down but within the statue of limitations period
How later courts described this case
- holding that when the State alleges that the date of the offense was “on or about” a certain date, it is only required to show that the offense occurred before the indictment was handed down but within the statue of limitations period
- holding that even if “on or about” language in indictment is arguably ambiguous in reference to limitations, charge is not necessarily erroneous when viewed in the context of the entire trial
- discussing this "on or about" jurisprudence and noting that "this Court has invariably overruled complaints about a variance between the pleading and proof of relevant dates, even if the discrepancy is as much as several years"
- noting that “this Court has invariably overruled complaints about a variance between the pleading and proof of relevant dates, even if the discrepancy is as much as several years”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLINTON, J.,
joins with the further observation that the plurality illserves our appellate jurisprudence by characterizing and dismissing Benson v. State, 661 S.W.2d 708 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) and Boozer v. State, 717 S.W.2d 608 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), as decisions involving “erroneous jury charges.” The rule is that evidentiary sufficiency is measured by the charge as given; in neither was the charge found “erroneous.” See Benson, at 714; Boozer, at 611.
OVERSTREET, J., joins.