Court Opinion

ID: 9775262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:52:08.798687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:24.054391
License: Public Domain

TEAGUE, Judge,
dissenting.
I, too, dissented in Thomas v. State, 621 S.W.2d 158 (No. 59,974, July 1, 1981, opinion on State’s motion for rehearing).
*938A close reading of Thomas shows that it should be used to reverse, not affirm this cause, for there Judge McCormick, in his majority opinion, emphasized the fact that “the term ‘owner’ does not go to an act or omission of the defendant.”
Here, one should not quqstion the fact that the term “possession” does go to the act of the defendant in possessing the marihuana. The information sought by appellant was the legal theory of just which kind of possession was going to be established by the State’s proof. In sum, as Judge Clinton pointed out in Ferguson v. State, 622 S.W.2d 846 (1980), this indictment was subject to a motion to quash as it does not show on its face facts necessary to give appellant precise notice of the nature of the accusation against him, as required by Art. I, Sec. 10 of the Texas Constitution.
The appellant’s contention that the trial court erred by not granting his motion to quash the indictment should be sustained and this cause should be reversed and the indictment ordered dismissed.