Court Opinion

ID: 9774399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:18:57.133075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:07.901385
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge,
concurring.
The indictment fails to allege explicitly the element that “the statement is required or authorized by law to be made under oath.” See Texas Penal Code, Sec. 37.-02(a)(2). I do not commend this form, but I am able to agree that it is not fundamentally defective. The allegation that the statement was made “in connection with and during said official proceeding,” which was “a trial in the 89th District Court of Wichita County, Texas,” necessarily implies that the statement was authorized by law to be made under oath. In this case, the allegation of the aggravating element [see Texas Penal Code, Sec. 37.03(a)(2)] has replaced and included an element of the simple offense.
I want to emphasize that our holding in this case for this offense of aggravated perjury may not apply to other offenses in which the allegation of an aggravating element would not include and replace an omitted element.
I concur in the denial of relief.