Court Opinion

ID: 9772304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:14:03.59861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:43.377485
License: Public Domain

MEYERS, Judge,
dissenting.
The Court overrules nearly a century of precedent.1 I dissent.
*847I.
The two indictments at issue each alleged commission of an offense that is limitations barred. On appeal appellants claimed the evidence was insufficient to show the offense for which they were convicted occurred within the limitations period. The majority holds the statute of limitations is now going to be a defense which “is forfeited if not asserted at or before the guilVinnocence stage of trial.” Proctor and Lemell v. State (Tex.Crim.App.1998). Only if “there is some evidence before the jury, from any source, that the prosecution is limitations-barred” does the State have a burden to prove the prosecution is not limitations-barred. Id, at 844.
In so holding, the majority overrules over one hundred years of caselaw because “when governing decisions of this Court are unworkable or badly reasoned, we are not constrained to follow precedent.” Id. at 845. The majority musters “at least two cases” which reflect some inconsistency in the law. These opinions were delivered some twenty-five ago.2 Ex parte Schmidt, 500 S.W.2d 144 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); Ex parte Ward, 470 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App.1971). Two random cases delivered twenty-five years past, in the midst of caselaw spanning one hundred years consistently holding to the contrary do not strike me as indicating the prevailing rule is so “unworkable” as to compel a radical change.
But the Court finds the State in a muck for having failed to file the instant indictments in a timely manner. And it would be a bitter pill to swallow if this Court were to be held responsible for the State’s sloppy prosecution, resulting in the release of two co-defendants who most certainly committed the heinous crime for which they were convicted. So never mind that the State had five years to file the instant indictments but filed in the sixth year.3 And never mind precedent.
II.
The Court’s holding raises new questions in light of related precedent.
A majority of this Court recently reiterated settled law that “the ‘on or about’ language of an indictment allows the State to prove a date other than the one alleged in the indictment as long as the date is anterior to the presentment of the indictment and within the statutory limitation period.”4 *848Sledge v. State, 953 S.W.2d 253, 256 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). It follows from this that an indictment alleging “on or about” a particular date places the defendant in jeopardy for any such offense within the applicable limitation period. But what if a defendant who fails to assert his statute of limitation defense is convicted of an offense that occurred outside the limitation period? Then hasn’t he been convicted of an offense for which he was not placed in jeopardy? And how is legal sufficiency of the evidence determined in these circumstances? We measure sufficiency by applying a “hypothetically correct” jury charge. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). How would such charge deal with the issue of limitations? A hypothetically correct charge
... accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried.
Id. at 240. How can we harmonize precedent holding that an indictment alleging “on or about” describes any offense within the limitation period, with today’s rule that limitations is a defensive issue that must be raised in order for the State to prove it? On the one hand, by its terms, the indictment provides the State can prove any date so long as it is within the limitation period; on the other hand, the State need not prove the offense occurred within the limitations period unless the defendant raises the issue. How would a “hypothetically correct” charge, one that “accurately sets out the law,” reflect these two rules of law?
One last thought. The Court’s opinion shifts the burden on the issue of limitations from the State to the defendant. Before this ease, and thus at the time of appellants’ trials, the State had the burden of proving limitations, and the defendant had no burden on the matter. Proctor and Lemell, at 843 (“we have held repeatedly that the State must always prove, as part of its burden of proof in a criminal prosecution, that the prosecution is not limitations-barred, even if the defendant does not raise the issue”). Bearing no burden to raise the issue at trial, appellants did not. But the Court holds appellants procedurally defaulted the issue by failing to raise it at trial. Go figure.
I dissent.
PRICE, J., joins.

. The majority says requiring the State to prove the offense occurred within the applicable limitations period has proven “unworkable.'' Precedent has regularly come to be viewed as “unworkable” in recent months. See Hatch v. State, 958 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)(overruling Hernandez); Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)(overruling portion of Jarrett); Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)(overruling Dubose, Carter and Arcila ); Ex parte McJunkins, 954 S.W.2d 39 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)(op. on reh'g)(recalling mandate in order to issue opinion overruling Ex parte Sims); Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)(overruling Benson/Boozer line of cases); Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)(overruling Morales, Marin, Whitten to extent of conflict); see also Creager v. State, 952 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)(disavowing implication in Dunn); Carmona v. State, 941 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)(disavowing Fuller to some extent).

. In the two cases relied upon by the majority, the Court did not apply limitations as a defense. The defendants in both cases had been ordered extradited for trial on charges in another state. They claimed the charges in the other state were barred by the other state’s statutes of limitations. In Ward, while we did say "[l]imitations are a matter of defense and must be asserted on the trial by the defendant in criminal cases,” citing Supreme court precedent, we ultimately determined to view limitations as a "factual matter for the demanding state to decide along with the interpretation of its laws.” In response to the defendant’s statute of limitations claim in Schmidt, we said simply ”[t]his Court has dealt with a similar contention in [Ward], and in that case we held that this was a matter of defense which should be decided in the courts of the demanding state.”

. Appellants were first tried and convicted in 1982. Upon reversal by the court of appeals, they were retried in 1988. This case arises from the 1988 convictions.
The indictments underlying appellants’ convictions in the instant case were filed January 8, 1988, charging appellants with aggravated robbery by causing serious bodily injury to Wing Lew on or about January 29, 1982. An indictment for aggravated robbery must be presented within five years from the date of the commission of the offense. Tex.Code Crim.Proc. Ann. art. 12.01(4)(A), 12.03(d). The State’s proof showed the offense occurred on or about January 29, 1982, as alleged; therefore, the State also had to prove tolling (under the law prior to today's opinion). The State says the statute was tolled by the timely filing of the 1982 indictments which contained the same allegations for which appellants were convicted under the 1988 indictments. Even if evidence of the existence of the 1982 indictments could be considered (the only evidence of the 1982 indictments was offered in a hearing outside the presence of the jury), the State expressly abandoned the relevant allegations in the 1982 indictments prior to empaneling the jury in the 1982 trial. Proctor v. State, 841 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). Thus, that charge was not preserved by the 1982 indictments. As such, the State could bring a future prosecution on those allegations, but it had to be brought within the limitations period. The State should have re-indicted on the instant allegations on or before January 29, 1987, but did not do so until January 8, 1988, at which time the limitations period had run.

.As I have previously pointed out, the "on or about” language does not work some magic allowing the State to prove an offense on a date other than the one alleged. Míreles v. State, 901 *848S.W.2d 458, 465 (Tex.Crim.App.1995)(Meyers, J., dissenting). Pleading the offense was committed "on” a certain date has also been construed as meaning the State need only prove a date within the limitation period. Id. But a majority of the Court has recently come to insist that the "on or about” language is critical in order to transform the allegation into one which allows the State to prove up an offense on any date within limitations. See Sledge v. State, 953 S.W.2d 253, 256 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)(referring to "on or about” language as that which allows State to prove date other than, one alleged but within limitation period).