Court Opinion

ID: 9643401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:28:00.860899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:00.360631
License: Public Domain

HOLLIS HORTON, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the State that whether one becomes intoxicated through the loss of his normal faculties, or by having a blood alcohol content greater than .08 is an eviden-tiary matter and should not, as a result, be required to be stated in the indictment. However, the Court of Criminal appeals has not yet chosen to overturn its opinion in Garcia v. State, 747 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), which requires the State, upon the defendant’s filing of a motion to quash, to re-indict the defendant and notify him whether it intends to rely on a “per se” theory, an impairment theory, or both. I concur in the result because I cannot agree with the majority’s explanation that attempts to reconcile the Court of Criminal Appeals opinion in Gray v. State, 152 S.W.3d 125 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) with its reasoning in Garcia. However, we are not free to disregard an opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals that is directly on point. As a result, I concur that the trial court’s order to quash the information must be affirmed.