Court Opinion

ID: 9643862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:42:02.543973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:04.682087
License: Public Domain

HUGHES, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent only inasmuch as the indictment fails to state that appellant was not the victim’s spouse.
That part of the statute defining indecency with a child under which appellant was convicted, V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 21.-11(a)(2) (1966), reads as follows:
(a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years and not his spouse, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex, he:

(2) exposes his anus or any part of his genitals, knowing the child is present, with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
There is no question that Section 21.-11(a)(2) contemplates that an accused has not committed an offense if the person to whom he has exposed himself is his spouse. Stated differently, it is an essential element of the offense that the victim not be the spouse of the accused.
It has been repeatedly held that an indictment must allege all essential elements of the offense charged. Ex Parte Clark, 588 S.W.2d 898 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Holcomb v. State, 573 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Ex Parte Mathis, 571 S.W.2d 186 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). An indictment which fails to allege all elements of the offense is void, since it fails to charge an offense against the law and thereby invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. Ex Parte McCurdy, 571 S.W.2d 31 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Ex Parte Cannon, 546 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); American Plant Food Corporation v. State, 508 S.W.2d 598 (Tex.Cr.App.1974, appeal dismissed 419 U.S. 1098, 95 S.Ct. 767, 42 L.Ed.2d 795).
It cannot be denied that appellant had actual notice that the victim was not his spouse. However, the two functions of an indictment, to give adequate notice to the accused and to invoke the jurisdiction of the *939trial court, are distinctive. Drumm v. State, 560 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). This case is distinguishable from Jacquez v. State, 579 S.W.2d 247 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). There the face of the indictment contained allegations which made it legally impossible for the accused to have been married to the victim. The indictment in this case contains no such allegations.