Court Opinion

ID: 9660504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:14:41.710492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:19.984734
License: Public Domain

OPINION DISSENTING TO THE OVERRULING OF THE STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING WITHOUT WRITTEN OPINION
DALLY, Judge.
The majority overrules the State’s motion for Rehearing Without Written Opinion. I dissent.
*848In the indictment it is alleged that the appellants:
“did then and there intentionally and knowingly engage in conduct that caused serious bodily injury and serious physical deficiency and impairment to Michael Franks, a child younger than fifteen (15) years of age, by then and there striking the said Michael Franks by means which are to the Grand Jurors unknown, and by then and there burning the said Michael Franks by means which are to the Grand Jurors unknown, and by then and there denying the said Michael Franks of food and nourishment and adequate medical attention.”
There was an attempt to conjunctively allege that the offense was committed in three ways:
(1) by striking Michael Franks, and
(2) by burning Michael Franks, and
(3) by denying food and medical attention to Michael Franks. Under our decision in Ronk v. State, 544 S.W.2d 123 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), the indictment does not sufficiently allege the offense was committed by denying food and medical attention to Michael Franks, but as the Panel opinion acknowledges the indictment alleges that an offense was committed by striking Michael Franks and by burning Michael Franks. Even though it was not suggested by either of the appellants, the Panel reversed the judgments stating as the reason for the reversal that the court's charge allowed a conviction for any of the ways in which the offense was allegedly committed, including the defective allegation.
The pertinent parts of the charge read:
“Therefore, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Thomas Smith [Betty Franks Smith], did, in Galveston County, Texas, on or about April 29, 1975, intentionally and knowingly engage in conduct as alleged in the indictment that caused serious bodily injury to Michael Franks, and that the said Michael Franks was then and there a child 14 years of age or younger, you will find the defendant guilty.”
The State in its Motion for Rehearing points out that the court’s charge, rather than allowing a conviction on proof that the offense was committed in any of the three ways alleged, required for a conviction proof that the offense was committed in all of the three ways alleged. Since two of the ways alleged are admitted sufficiently alleged and the jury to convict was required to find the appellants committed acts necessary to prove both of these allegations, the judgment should not be reversed for the reason stated in the Panel opinion.
ODOM, TOM G. DAVIS and W. C. DAVIS, JJ., join in this dissent.