Court Opinion

ID: 9678037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:09:27.649755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:01.514933
License: Public Domain

DIAL, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
I adopt the majority’s possible definitions of “terrorize,” i.e., fill with terror or anxiety, coerce by threat or violence, excite fear, rule by intimidation. The testimony of the complainant, as related in the majority opinion, was that the appellant did all of the above. The statute does not require continuous terrorizing, only that the abduction be with intent to terrorize. I find no conflicting evidence on appellant’s intent to terrorize. In the absence of a disputed factual element, a charge on the lesser included offense is not required. Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981).
Before the court en banc.