Court Opinion

ID: 9649039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:41:04.350777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:07.230109
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(dissenting).
I cannot bring myself to agree to the reversal of this conviction for the reason that the identical contention was before this Court in Schepps v. State, 432 S.W.2d 926. As shown by the records of this Court, the exception to the fourth count of the indictment in Schepps read in part as follows: (Emphasis added)
“ * * * Defendant would show, therefore, that said Fourth Count of the indictment, in its pleadings, is uncertain. The Defendant is not informed by the allegations of such Fourth Count with certainty and in plain and intelligible language, as required by law, of the offense with which he is charged and which the State expects to prove and cannot prepare his defense.”
In his appellate brief, Schepps raised the following ground of error:
“The fourth count of the indictment, under which appellant was convicted, is fatally defective in that it fails to allege constituent elements of the offense denounced by the statute.”
In the case at bar, appellant Terry stated his ground of error as follows:
“The second count of the indictment is bad because it is too vague, general and indefinite and fails to allege the constituent elements of the offense sought to be charged.”
As I see no significant difference between the question presented in Schepps and the ground of error under consideration in the case at bar, I must dissent to the reversal of appellant Terry’s conviction.
ODOM, J., not participating.