Court Opinion

ID: 9661888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:54:01.939992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:34.890504
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority reverses this case because the indictment failed to allege the complainant in the underlying crimes of kidnapping, aggravated rape and robbery.
This Court has long held that an indictment for capital murder need not allege the *428constituent elements of the underlying crime. Burns v. State, 556 S.W.2d 270 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Livingston v. State, 542 S.W.2d 655 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). In Hammett v. State, 578 S.W.2d 699 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), we followed that rule even though there was a motion to quash the indictment. The majority’s opinion today does not follow this long-standing rule.
Capital murder is not the only crime where we have held such a particularized indictment to be unnecessary. In Vaughn v. State, 530 S.W.2d 558 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), the defendant was charged with burglary with the intent to commit injury to a child. The failure to allege the child’s name did not render the indictment fatally defective.
In Earl v. State, 514 S.W.2d 273 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), the defendant was charged with aggravated robbery and contended on appeal that the indictment should have alleged the constituent elements of theft. As with the capital murder statute, V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 19.03, the infliction or threat of serious bodily injury must occur “in the course of committing theft.” V.T. C.A., Penal Code, Section 29.02. Because the language “in the course of” includes conduct occurring in an attempt to commit, during the commission, or in immediate flight after the attempt of the commission, the actual commission of the theft is not a prerequisite to the commission of the robbery. All that need be proven is that the theft occurred during the course of a robbery. We have adhered to that principle in assault cases as well. See Gonzales v. State, 517 S.W.2d 785 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), and cases cited therein.
We should continue to follow the rule which is based on sound reasoning.
The judgment should be affirmed.
W. C. DAVIS, J., joins in this dissent.