Court Opinion

ID: 9674744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:34:43.626882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:29.518414
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority holds that the allegation in the indictment that Santellana did
“.. . threaten and place the complainant in fear of imminent bodily injury and death, by using and exhibiting a deadly weapon, namely, a pistol ...”
does not allege that he “intentionally” or “knowingly” made such threat. How can one threaten another with death without intending to make such a threat?
Article 21.17, V.A.C.C.P., provides in substance that in charging an offense an indictment does not have to allege the exact words in setting out the crime, but words of similar meaning may be used.
All one has to do is read that part of the indictment which alleges that the petitioner threatened death of the complainant by using a pistol. It shows that the threat was intended. Can one recklessly or negligently threaten to kill another with a pistol?
“Threat” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., Rev., as follows:
“A declaration of intention or determination to inflict punishment, loss, or pain on another, or to injure another by the commission of some unlawful act. (Citations omitted)”
According to the construction by the majority, a prosecutor has to allege in effect that a defendant intentionally intended to injure another. Prom the definition set out above, it is readily seen that threaten includes intent. Why does a prosecutor have to allege that one intentionally threatened when both words include intent?
Petitioner was tried and convicted in 1974. He and his attorney knew that he was charged with robbery by threatening the victim with serious bodily injury and death. There was no appeal. There should be an end to granting relief after one had been tried many years before. He had sufficient notice of the offense.
There should be some legislation to prevent relief in cases such as this where the offense is properly identified in the indictment. See the dissent in Ex parte Cannon, 546 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). The test that was, and should be, used was set out in Ex parte Merriell, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 534, 294 S.W.2d 400 (1956). It is as follows:
“There being a valid law under which a sufficient complaint and information could have been drawn for the act of obtaining property with intent to injure and defraud by the giving of the check, draft or order set out in the information, any irregular or insufficient averment of facts would not entitle appellant to relief by habeas corpus.”
The relief sought should be denied.