Court Opinion

ID: 9660167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:06:58.312702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:16.206190
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority grants the relief in the aggravated rape case because of the omission in the indictment of a culpable mental state. The culpable mental states are that one intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently commit the act constituting a crime. It is inconceivable that one can, by threats to take a life, compel a woman to submit to intercourse by recklessness or negligence. It is conceivable that one can threaten to inflict serious bodily injury or death to compel a woman to submit to intercourse without knowing it?
The indictment reads that petitioner did “... unlawfully, by force and threats, and without the consent of Mrs. J_ L_, ravish and have sexual intercourse with Mrs. J_L_, a female not then and there the wife of the said Stephen McWilliams, and the said Stephen McWil-liams did compel submission by Mrs. J_L_to said ravishment and sexual intercourse by threatening to inflict death and serious bodily injury to the said Mrs. J_L_”
V.T.G.A., Penal Code, Section 21.02, sets forth the elements of rape:
“(a) A person commits an offense if he has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife without the female’s consent.
“(b) The intercourse is without the female’s consent under one or more of the following circumstances:
“(1) he compels her to submit or participate by force that overcomes such earnest resistance as might reasonably be expected under the circumstances;
“(2) he compels her to submit or participate by any threat, communicated by actions, words, or deeds, that would prevent resistance by a woman of ordinary resolution, under the same or similar circumstances, because of a reasonable fear of harm; ...”
V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 21.03, sets forth the aggravating circumstances of rape:
“(a) A person commits an offense if he commits rape as defined in Section 21.-02 of this code or rape of a child as defined in Section 21.09 of this code and he:

“(2) compels submission to the rape by threat of death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping to be imminently inflicted on anyone.”
*822In Childs v. State, 547 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), the defendant contended that the indictment failed to allege to whom the threat of death was communicated and was, thus, fundamentally defective. We held that a “logical deduction arising from a reasonable reading of the entire indictment is that the prosecutrix submitted to appellant’s act because he threatened her with the imminent infliction of death.” 547 S.W.2d at 615.
In Clark v. State, 527 S.W.2d 292 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), we held that the indictment, read as a whole, was sufficient to apprise the defendant of the offense under the statute. See also Banks v. State, 530 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Cr.App.1976).
Article 21.17, V.A.C.C.P., provides:
“Words used in a statute to define an offense need not be strictly pursued in the indictment; it is sufficient to use other words conveying the same meaning, or which include the sense of the statutory words.”
When the indictment in the present case is read as a whole, it is clear that McWil-liams is charged with aggravated rape. It is incomprehensible that someone can threaten to inflict death and serious bodily injury on another and by force and threats have sexual intercourse with the complainant and not know about it or intend to do it. We should look at the indictment, absent a motion to quash, only to see if it sufficiently charges an offense against the State.
The majority grants relief in the aggravated kidnapping conviction. The relief should not be granted in aggravated robbery convictions for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion in Orosco v. State, 590 S.W.2d 121 (Tex.Cr.App.1980).