Court Opinion

ID: 9680660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:35:54.941696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.894935
License: Public Domain

O’CONNOR, Justice,
dissenting.
I disagree with the panel’s resolution of point of error one. I would reverse in trial cause number 96CR1231, which is our cause number 01-97-01371-CR.
FATAL VARIANCE
The State did not prove the allegations in the indictment in cause number 96CR1231. In that indictment, the appellant was charged with indecency with a child by the name of “Cynthia Torres.” At trial, the State’s evidence showed that the appellant engaged in indecency with a child by the name of “Cynthia Trevino.” In the charge, the jury was asked if the appellant engaged with indecency with a child by the name of “Cynthia Torres.”
The majority recognizes the general rule that a variance between the indictment and evidence at trial is fatal to a conviction. The majority acknowledges that due process is violated when an indictment alleges one offense, but the State proves another. The majority then goes on to assume the variance between the evidence at trial and the indictment was not fatal *627because it was not a material variance. The majority decides that a mistake in the name of the complainant was not a fatal variance by relying on a case that relied on a statute that permits the use of a pseudonym for a complainant. See Stevens v. State, 891 S.W.2d 649, 650 (Tex.Crim.App.1995); Tex.Code CRim. P. art. 57.02(b).
No pseudonym was used in this case; the State made an error in introducing its evidence. There is a significant difference between a statute that permits the State to use a pseudonym and the State’s failure to prove the allegations in the indictment.
The majority makes the astounding statement that “The record shows unequivocally that appellant was not misled about the true identity of the complainant.” From this, I assume that any error in the State’s proof can be supplied by assuming the defendant knew what the proof should have been.
I would reverse the judgment and acquit the appellant in trial cause number 96CR1232, our cause number 01-97-01371-CR.