## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

N O

. P D

- 1 8 8 9

- 1 1

D A V I D L E N M O U L T O N

, A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N S T A T E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E S I X T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

C A S S C O U N T Y

C O C H R A N

, J

. , f

i l e d a c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n

.

O P I N I O N

I a g r e e t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e d i d n o t e r r w h e n h e i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y o n t h e “ u n k n o w n ”

m a n n e r a n d m e a n s o f c o m m i t t i n g m u r d e r

. I w r i t e s e p a r a t e l y b e c a u s e I b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s a r e a

o f l a w h a s b e c o m e o v e r l y f o r m a l i s t i s t i c a n d d i v o r c e d f r o m i t s o r i g i n a l p u r p o s e o f g i v i n g

n o t i c e t o t h e d e f

e n d a n t

.

T h e c o m m o n

- l a w r u l e o f i n c l u d i n g a n a l l e g a t i o n o f a “ m a n n e r a n d m e a n s u n k n o w n 1

Although the Code of Criminal Procedur e re quires the State to include a descr iption of 1

unknown per sons and prope rty , as we ll as a statement that the pr ecise name of the per son orMoulton Concurring Opinion Page 2

t o t h e g r a n d j u r y ” i n a n i n d i c t m e n t w h e n n o o n e k n o w s e x a c t l y h o w a n o f f e n s e w a s

c o m m i t t e d e n s u r e s t h a t t h e S t a t e g i v e s t h e d e f e n d a n t a s m u c h n o t i c e a s i t c a n a b o u t i t s t h e o r y

o f h o w t h e c r i m e w a s c o m m i t t e d

. T h e r u l e d i s c o u r a g e s t h e S t a t e f r o m e i t h e r h i d i n g e v i d e n c e

f r o m t h e g r a n d j u r y o r c o n d u c t i n g a l a c k a d a i s i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n b e f o r e s e e k i n g a g r a n d j u r y

i n d i c t m e n t

. A s w a s e x p l a i n e d i n t h e 1 8 8 3 c a s e

, W a l k e r v

. S t a t e

, t h e S t a t e n e e d n o t a l l e g e t h e

s p e c i f i c m a n n e r a n d m e a n s b y w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t p u r p o r t e d l y m u r d e r e d s o m e o n e i f t h e

i n d i c t m e n t s t a t e s t h a t t h e “ m u r d e r w a s c o m m i t t e d ‘ i n s o m e w a y o r m a n n e r

, a n d b y s o m e

m e a n s

, i n s t r u m e n t s a n d w e a p o n s

, t o t h e [ g r a n d ] j u r o r s u n k n o w n

. ’ ” 2

F e w T e x a s c a s e s e x p l a i n t h e p u r p o s e o r g e n e s i s o f t h i s p o l i c y

, b u t o n e o f t h e c a s e s t h a t

t h e W a l k e r c o u r t r e l i e d o n w a s P e o p l e v

. C r o n i n

, a n 1 8 6 7 C a l i f o r n i a S u p r e m e C o u r t d e c i s i o n 3

proper ty is unknown to the g rand jury , in its i ndictments, there is no such sta tutory require ment

for the unknow n “manne rs and mea ns” by which an of

fense is committ ed. See T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . arts. 21.08 & 21.09.

14 Tex. App. 609, 627 (1883). 2

34 Cal. 191 (Cal. 1867). Cronin had a rg ued that 3

[t ]he Court erre d in overruling the demurr er to the f irst count of the indictment.

This count is the same as if it had me rely said, Timothy

Cronin killed J ulia Cronin

feloniously , etc., but in what manne r is not known. I t is a mere c onclusion; not a

fac t is stated–no wound of any kind, nor how the de cea sed wa s found, or whe re;

not even the c ondition of her re mains; in fact, nothing is stated advising the

defe ndant as to wha t prepa ration it was nec essar

y to make in def

ense. I f it was

alleg ed that she w as poisoned, he c ould have ha d her disinterr ed, and he r stomach

analy zed; if a g un shot wound, that he neve r had w eapons a bout him; i f a blow or

cut, he c ould have summoned phy sicians to show that such a blow or cut would

not produce death; if fr om strang ulation, he would have prepa red to mee t that

char g e. B ut not a fac t is stated, and the def endant is ca lled upon to defe nd his life,

without knowing wha

t is charg ed ag ainst him.

. . .Moulton Concurring Opinion Page 3

i n w h i c h t h e “ f

l i m s y ” h i s t o r i c a l p u r p o s e f o r t h e r u l e w a s a d d r e s s e d :

T h e o n l y r e a s o n a s s i g n e d b y t h e c o m m o n l a w w h y t h e m a n n e r a n d m e a n s b y

w h i c h t h e h o m i c i d e w a s c o m m i t t e d s h o u l d b e s t a t e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t

, w a s t h a t

t h e d e f e n d a n t m i g h t b e f

u l l y i n f o r m e d a s t o t h e c a s e a g a i n s t h i m

, a n d t h e r e b y

e n a b l e d t o p r e p a r e f

o r h i s d e f

e n s e

. A s w e h a d o c c a s i o n t o r e m a r k i n t h e c a s e

o f T h e P e o p l e v

. K i n g

, . . . t h i s r e a s o n o f t h e c o m m o n l a w w a s b u t a f l i m s y

p r e t e x t

, f o r i f t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s g u i l t y

, h e s t o o d i n n o n e e d o f i n f o r m a t i o n a s

t o t h e m e a n s b y w h i c h h e c o m m i t t e d t h e c r i m e ; a n d i f n o t g u i l t y

, t h e

i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t h e d i d t h e a c t i n a p a r t i c u l a r w a y

, o r b y t h e u s e o f p a r t i c u l a r

m e a n s

, c o u l d n o t a s s i s t h i m i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f h i s d e f e n s e

. H e n c e

, i n t h e

l e g i s l a t i o n o f t h i s S t a t e

, a n d i n t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h i s C o u r t

, t h e r u l e s o f t h e

c o m m o n l a w

, i n r e s p e c t t o i n d i c t m e n t s

, h a v e b e e n m o r e a n d m o r e r e l a x e d a s

o c c a s i o n h a s s u g g e s t e d

. 4

To hold, then, that an indictment conta ining no f act is suffic ient, because

the Gra nd J ury could not ascertain the fa cts, is simpl y beg g ing the question. I f the

Gra nd J ury could asc erta in that the defe ndant committed the dee d, it could have

set forth the f

acts upon whic h such a f

inding wa s predicated, without which the

indictment stands with sim ply the fa ct alleg ed that def

endant c ommitt ed the

murder. T he District Attorne y could, under

our statute, if ther e wa s any doubt as

to the prec ise mode in which de ath was pr oduced, ha ve found a s many

counts as

the exigenc y

of the c ase r equire d.

Id. at 197-98.

Id. at 200. The Califor

nia Supreme Court fur

ther e x plained: 4

Thus it has been he ld that a desc ription of the wea pon is not necessa

ry

, ( People v . Steve nson , 9 Cal. 273) and that it is not material to desc ribe the w ound,

further than to say

that it was mortal, or that the pa rty died of the w ound. (

People

v. Judd

, 1 0 C a l

. 3 1 3 .) While it m ay be we ll to st ate the me ans by which death

was c aused, w e do not consider such a c ourse indispensable . The killing is the

ultimate and issuable fa ct, and we can pe rce ive no satisfac tory rea son why

the

means by which it was done should be stated in eve ry case , and ce rtainly

not in a

case wher e the mea

ns are unknown. I n this case, a s y et, the mea ns by which the

homicide was c ommitt ed lie mainly in conjectur e. True , the Gra nd J ury might

have multiplied counts until all possi ble modes and me ans of inflicting death y et

discovere d had bee n descr ibed; but to what g ood purpose? The de fenda nt, in that

case , would have obta ined no valuable information. He w ould have be en as little

informed a s to the rea l means as he is by the pre sent indictment; and y et the one or

the other c ourse must be a dopted, wher e the mea ns are unknown, for the criminalMoulton Concurring Opinion Page 4

I t t o o k m o r e t h a n 1 0 0 y e a r s

, b u t n o w t h e T e x a s i n d i c t m e n t r u l e s h a v e a l s o b e e n r e l a x e d

, b o t h

b y c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a m e n d m e n t a n d b y s t a t u t e

. 5

T h e o r i g i n a l r u l e w a s s i m p l e i n t h e o r y a n d i n p r a c t i c e : I f

, a f t e r m a k i n g a d i l i g e n t

i n q u i r y

, t h e g r a n d j u r y c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e p r e c i s e l y w h a t w a s t h e m a n n e r ( t h e a c t u s r e u s

–

cannot be allowed to esc ape justice beca use the pre cise mea

ns by which the c rime

was c ommitt ed ca

nnot be discover ed.

Id. The California

Court also ref

err ed to the “f

amous” 1850 W

ebster case from Massa chusetts, in

which the Ma ssachuse tts S upreme Court expl ained the c ommon-law “unknow n manner and

means” indictment rule:

To a pe rson unskilled and unpra ctised in leg al proc eeding s, it may seem stra ng e

that sever al modes of de ath, inconsistent with eac h other, should be state d in the

same doc ument. But it is often nec essar y ; and the re ason for

it, when explained,

will be obvious. The indictment is but the charg e or a ccusa tion made by the g rand

jury , with as much ce rtainty and pre cision as the evide nce be fore them will

war rant. The y

may be we ll satisfied that the homicide wa s committed, and y et the

evidenc e bef

ore the m may

leave it somewhat doubtful as to the mode of de ath;

but, in order to mee t the evidenc e as it may finally appea r, they are very proper ly

allowed to set out the mode in diff ere nt counts; and then if any one of the m is

proved, supposing it to be also leg ally formal, it is sufficient to support the

indictment.

. . . The rule s of law r equire the g rand jury to state their cha

rg e with as much c erta inty

as the c ircumstance s of the ca se will permit; and, if the c ircumstance s will not

permit a fuller

and more prec ise statement of the mode in which the de ath is

occa sioned, this count conforms to the rule s of law. I am there fore instructed by

the cour t to say , that, if y ou are satisfied upon the e vidence , that the def endant is

g uilty of the c rime cha

rg ed, this form of indictment is sufficie nt to sustain a

conviction.

Commonwealth v. W

ebster , 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 295, 322-23 ( Mass. 1850).

See ge nerally Studer v. State , 799 S.W .2d 263, 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (setting out 5

prior ca ses and noting that, befor e the 1985 c onstitut ional and leg islative chang es, “[a] substance

defe ct was c onsidered ‘ fundame ntal err or’ since a cha rg ing instrument with such a defe ct fa iled

to confe r jurisdiction upon the trial cour t, and any conviction had upon that instrument wa s

there fore void. Also appare nt from the ca selaw is that this Court has used the ter ms ‘substance

defe ct,’ ‘f undamental e rror ,’ and ‘ fata lly defe ctive’ inter chang eably when a ddressing err ors in

char g ing instruments whic h led to void convictions.”).Moulton Concurring Opinion Page 5

s h o o t i n g

, p o i s o n i n g

, h i t t i n g

, s t a b b i n g

, s t r a n g l i n g ) o f t h e o f f e n s e o r t h e m e a n s ( t h e

i n s t r u m e n t

– g u n

, s w o r d

, k n i f e

, h a n d s

, m a n h o l e c o v e r ) t h a t t h e o f f e n d e r u s e d t o c o m m i t t h e

o f f e n s e

, j u s t s a y s o i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t

. D o t h e b e s t y o u c a n ; t h a t i s g o o d e n o u g h

. I n t h e p a s t

,

w e s h o u l d n o t h a v e m a d e a m i g h t y m o u n t a i n o u t o f a p l e a d i n g m o l e h i l l

. W e d o n o t d o s o i n

t h e s e t i m e s

.

I f t h e d e f

e n d a n t i s f

l u m m o x e d b y t h e f

a i l u r e t o h a v e g r e a t e r n o t i c e

, h e m a y f i l e a

m o t i o n t o q u a s h t h e i n d i c t m e n t a n d p u t t h e S t a t e t o i t s b u r d e n t o s h o w t h a t i t s t i l l d o e s n o t

k n o w t h e p r e c i s e m a n n e r a n d m e a n s

. I f t h e S t a t e d o e s h a v e m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e

m a n n e r a n d m e a n s ( o r a t l e a s t h a s a m o r e p r e c i s e r a n g e o f p o s s i b i l i t i e s )

, t h e n i t m u s t g i v e t h e

d e f e n s e n o t i c e o f t h a t e v i d e n t i a r y i n f o r m a t i o n

. I f

, a t t h e m o t i o n t o q u a s h h e a r i n g

, i t t u r n s o u t

t h a t t h e S t a t e n o w k n o w s e x a c t l y w h a t m a n n e r a n d m e a n s i t i n t e n d s t o p r o v e

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e

m a y o r d e r t h e S t a t e t o a m e n d t h e i n d i c t m e n t o r s e e k a n e w o n e t h a t i s m o r e s p e c i f i c

.

R e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t f i l e s a p r e t r i a l m o t i o n t o q u a s h t h e i n d i c t m e n t

,

i f t h e e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e s a s p e c i f i c m a n n e r a n d m e a n s

, o r a c o m b i n a t i o n o f

v a r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e s

, t h e n t h e j u d g e s h o u l d o m i t t h e “ u n k n o w n ” l a n g u a g e i n h i s j u r y c h a r g e

.

I n s t e a d

, a s t h e m a

j o r i t y s t a t e s

, t h e j u r y c h a r g e s h o u l d b e w r i t t e n t o g i v e t h e j u r y a c h o i c e f r o m

t h e l i m i t e d l i s t o f p o s s i b i l i t i e s r e g a r d i n g m a n n e r a n d m e a n s

. I f

, a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g a l l o f t h e 6

e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d

, t h e p r e c i s e m a n n e r a n d m e a n s s t i l l c a n n o t b e i d e n t i f i e d

, a s i n t h i s c a s e

,

Majority op. at 12 (noting that, in Sanchez v . State , 376 S.W .3d 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 6

2012) (op. on r eh’g ), there was a “limited list of known a lternatives” that could explain the

victim’s cause of dea th).Moulton Concurring Opinion Page 6

t h e j u d g e s h o u l d l e a v e t h e “ u n k n o w n ” l a n g u a g e i n t h e j u r y c h a r g e

. H e r e

, n o o n e

, i n c l u d i n g

t h e m e d i c a l e x a m i n e r

, c o u l d b e c e r t a i n o f t h e s p e c i f i c m a n n e r o f R e b e c c a M o u l t o n ’ s d e a t h ;

i t w a s “ s o m e s o r t o f a s p h y x i a

, ” b u t t h a t w a s a s g o o d a s t h e w i t n e s s a n d t h e s c i e n c e c o u l d t e l l

.

I f t h e p r e c i s e m a n n e r a n d m e a n s c a n n o t b e d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e m e d i c a l e x a m i n e r

, t h e n w e

h a v e t o b e s a t i s f

i e d t h a t t h e m a n n e r a n d m e a n s m a y w e l l b e u n k n o w n t o t h e j u r y a s w e l l

.

W h a t m a t t e r s i s t h a t t h e j u r y w a s c o n v i n c e d

, b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

, t h a t a p p e l l a n t w a s

t h e p e r s o n w h o i n t e n t i o n a l l y c a u s e d h i s w i f e ’ s d e a t h

, h o w e v e r h e d i d i t

.

I j o i n t h e m a

j o r i t y o p i n i o n

.

F i l e d : M a r c h 6

, 2 0 1 3

P u b l i s h